A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said if God took the moon away, okay?

That is not what you said. You said "If the moon was suddenly turned off". It is right there in the passage that you quoted. Not that it really matters. It is a stupid thing to say in either case.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we didn't see the way Lessans described (and he had definite reasons for this claim; he didn't pull this observation out of his hat)...

That is probably true, unless he had a habit of sitting on his hat.

[LadyShea]

No, we always see in real time. When it's morning the light arrives due to the Earth's rotation, doesn't it? We see this light as it strikes our retina. But when light strikes a material object, we see the object in real time because of how the eyes work. The confusion is about distance because people have always thought that the greater the distance the longer the time it would take for light to reach us and therefore the longer it would take for us to see the image. But if Lessans is right, we would never be able to see an image of a past event (e.g. Columbus discovering America) because that event is no longer here, and light alone would never convey this information to us. If we didn't see the way Lessans described (and he had definite reasons for this claim; he didn't pull this observation out of his hat) then real time vision would sound ridiculous and all of the reasoning that followed would be null and void. So why aren't people trying to figure out if his claim regarding the brain and eyes could be right? If it turns out to be right, then this claim won't look so far-fetched as it does now.

According to optics the supernova 1987a happened 168,000 years before 1987, but it became naked eye visible from Earth in 1987. When did the supernova take place according to efferent vision?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is not what you said. You said "If the moon was suddenly turned off". It is right there in the passage that you quoted. Not that it really matters. It is a stupid thing to say in either case.

It didn't matter so why did you bring it up? Why is everyone nitpicking on things that don't matter?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we didn't see the way Lessans described (and he had definite reasons for this claim; he didn't pull this observation out of his hat)...

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is probably true, unless he had a habit of sitting on his hat.

That's so not funny.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

According to optics the supernova 1987a happened 168,000 years before 1987, but it became naked eye visible from Earth in 1987. When did the supernova take place according to efferent vision?

If a Supernova happened 168,000 years before 1987, then we would be seeing light from this Supernova that originated long ago. You think this proves efferent vision wrong because if light continues to travel long after the original event of a Supernova (which is just a delayed image) we should also be able to see images of events that happened long ago such as Columbus discovering America. This makes perfect logical sense but it is not grounded in fact.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It didn't matter so why did you bring it up? Why is everyone nitpicking on things that don't matter?

If it didn't matter, why did you tell such a transparent lie about what you said? You clearly and unequivocally wrote about what you claim would happen "[i]f the moon suddenly was turned off" then turned right around and claimed -- falsely -- that you "said if God took the moon away." Why are you always trying to disclaim any responsibility for your spectacularly sloppy language use?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is probably true, unless he had a habit of sitting on his hat.

That's so not funny. [/QUOTE]

(1) Since Angakuk's statement was objectively funny, I can only assume you didn't understand it. Permit me to explain.

You wrote that Lessans didn't pull efferent vision "out of his hat." Angakuk responded that your statement is likely true, unless Lessans habitually sat on his hat. Since people sit on their asses, Angakuk's response is a veiled assertion that Lessans pulled efferent vision not out of his hat but rather out of his ass. That is exceptionally funny. You're welcome.

(2) If you move on to another forum (), will you do its readers the courtesy of learning how to use its quote feature or will you continue the buffoonish ineptitude you've displayed here for over three years?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If a Supernova happened 168,000 years before 1987, then we would be seeing this light that originated long ago. Obviously, if it takes this much time for light to arrive.

So how does that equal "real time", as according to Lessans and you anything we can see, we are seeing as it happens and not after waiting the time it takes light to reach Earth.

Lessans said that distant stars were no exception, he specifically said we see distant stars in the same as we see the Sun and the Moon. If we could see our Sun explode without having to wait 8.5 minutes, why did we have to wait 168,000 years to see this other star explode?

Also, how is that not a contradiction to your statement from earlier today?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Any light that we see whether it's from a Supernova or from light interacting with the atmosphere is seen in real time if it meets the conditions of efferent vision.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That still doesn't prove that we see in delayed time. If the Sun was too far away for us to see it, we could still detect the incoming light as it arrived.

Supernova 1987a was naked eye visible. So it could be seen, and therefore was not too far away to be seen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So how does that equal "real time", as according to Lessans and you anything we can see, we are seeing as it happens and not after waiting the time it takes light to reach Earth.

Lessans said that distant stars were no exception, he specifically said we see distant stars in the same as we see the Sun and the Moon. If we could see our Sun explode without having to wait 8.5 minutes, why did we have to wait 168,000 years to see this other star explode?

I don't believe we are seeing the actual explosion in delayed time. We are detecting light that came from that explosion. If the Sun were to explode, I don't believe we would see the explosion a million light years hence either. According to the efferent model, we would see the explosion instantly only if it met the conditions of brightness and size relative to us. The light that we would detect 168,000 years later would not be an exact replica of the explosion and therefore the past. This is the very thing being disputed. I know you believe strongly in the afferent account, and I know I haven't convinced you, so let's leave it at that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Supernova 1987a was naked eye visible. So it could be seen, and therefore was not too far away to be seen.

It was a very bright light. I don't consider that an explosion. I am not even disputing that neutrinos and light travel at about the same speed but to say that this light is an exact image of a past event is based on a premise that hasn't been proven.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was a very bright light. I don't consider that an explosion.

Can you provide the new Lessans-Peacegirl definition of 'explosion' that somehow no longer includes supernovae?


supernova
[soo-per-noh-vuh]

noun, plural supernovas, supernovae
[soo-per-noh-vee] (Show IPA). Astronomy

1. the explosion of a star, possibly caused by gravitational collapse, during which the star's luminosity increases by as much as 20 magnitudes and most of the star's mass is blown away at very high velocity, sometimes leaving behind an extremely dense core.

2. the star undergoing such an explosion.

[Spacemonkey]

Those questions Peacegirl is too stupid and/or dishonest to even try to answer...

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe we are seeing the actual explosion in delayed time. We are detecting light that came from that explosion.

What does that even mean? The explosion and the light from the explosion are one and the same visually. All we can see of distant stars is their light.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the Sun were to explode, I don't believe we would see the explosion a million light years hence either.

Again, what the hell does that even mean? Our Sun is less than 10 light minutes away, so of course we wouldn't see it a million years later...where did you get "millions" of years from?

According to the efferent model, we would see the explosion instantly only if it met the conditions of brightness and size relative to us.

If we can see something, it necessarily meets the conditions of efferent vision according to Lessans, because if it didn't meet them we couldn't see it. Is that correct or not?

Here are the before and during pics of SN 1987A. You can see it as a star in the left pic and the right is of that star in supernova

It was a very bright light. I don't consider that an explosion. I am not even disputing that neutrinos and light travel at about the same speed but to say that this light is an exact image of a past event is based on a premise that hasn't been proven.

A supernova is an explosion by definition, so what the hell are you talking about? I am saying that the world saw a star suddenly get much larger and brighter a few hours after neutrinos arrived. I am asking you whether that increase in size and brightness was seen in real time, or after the light had time to travel the intervening distance.

[LadyShea]

Here are recent pics (Early this year) of a supernova in a galaxy about 11 million light years away, taken from an aircraft mounted telescope (Called SOFIA). According to Lessans, even using a very powerful telescope to see very long distances would allow us to see in real time, see things at the exact moment they are happening, the same as we see things on Earth.


The first two images above show the central portions of galaxy M82 prior to the supernova explosion, while the right image shows supernova SN2014J taken by the FLITECAM instrument on the SOFIA observatory on Feb. 20.
Image Credit:
NASA/SOFIA/FLITECAM team / Sachindev Shenoy

So, according to your super plausible model that doesn't violate optics or physics, when did this supernova occur? Did it occur at the moment the picture was taken, or 11 million years ago?

[LadyShea]

Here are pics from 2011 taken from an Earth based telescope (Palomar). Again, according to your super plausible model that doesn't violate optics or physics, when did this supernova occur? Did it occur at the moment the picture was taken, or 21 million years ago?


The arrow marks PTF 11kly in images taken on the Palomar 48-inch telescope over the nights of, from left to right, Aug. 22, 23 and 24. The supernova wasn't there Aug. 22, was discovered Aug. 23, and brightened considerably by Aug. 24. CREDIT: Peter Nugent and the Palomar Transient Factory

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light that we would detect 168,000 years later would not be an exact replica of the explosion and therefore the past.

WTF is an exact replica of an explosion? Is this photograph of an explosion an "exact replica"?

From New Zealand-based photographer Geoffrey H. Short series titled Towards Another (Big Bang) Theory

[LadyShea]

Look at the visible shock wave in this photo...it looks like a glass dome or bubble...but guess what? It is not an "actual object" at all. It cannot be seen with the naked eye, but we can photograph it and see it that way. How does efferent vision explain that?


Richard Hammond's Invisible Worlds

[The Lone Ranger]

Man, just look at those goalposts fly!

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe we are seeing the actual explosion in delayed time. We are detecting light that came from that explosion. If the Sun were to explode, I don't believe we would see the explosion a million light years hence either. According to the efferent model, we would see the explosion instantly only if it met the conditions of brightness and size relative to us. The light that we would detect 168,000 years later would not be an exact replica of the explosion and therefore the past. This is the very thing being disputed. I know you believe strongly in the afferent account, and I know I haven't convinced you, so let's leave it at that.

I will make this real simple for you.

According to you and Lessans, if we can see a star (whether with the naked eye or through a telescope) we see it because it meets the requirements of efferent vision (i.e. it is big enough and bright enough) and what we see is the star itself, not just the light from that star.

Therefore, if we see that same star go supernova then we must be seeing that supernova also in real time, the supernove itself and not just the light from the supernova.

As Lady Shea has demonstrated, the star in question was visible before it went supernova, therefore we must, according you and Lessans, be seeing that supernova in real time and we must be seeing the star itself, not just the light from the star.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Man, just look at those goalposts fly!

On the wings of light, at 92 million miles per nanosecond! Because closed system and proportionality!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to bear in mind the requirements of efferent vision. If the explosion is too far away, the Supernovae will not be detected.

Duh. You're not addressing the question.

As this burst of radiation travels, it will be detected by a telescope. If it is a nova, we might not be able to detect it because it's not luminous enough.

Irrelevant to the question

Nova means "new" in Latin, referring to what appears to be a very bright new star shining in the celestial sphere; the prefix "super-" distinguishes supernovae from ordinary novae which are far less luminous. The word supernova was coined by Walter Baade and Fritz Zwicky in 1931.[6] It is pronounced /ˌsuːpəˈnoʊvə/ with the plural supernovae /ˌsuːpəˈnoʊviː/ or supernovas (abbreviated SN, plural SNe after "supernovae").

Supernova - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WTF does this have to do with the simple question I asked?

A Supernovae is a large explosion of a dying star. We would see this explosion of interstellar debris and matter in real time under the requirements of efferent vision (as long as the Supernova was bright enough and large enough relative to the lens).

contradict yourself much?

The fact that light travels and arrives three hours before a neutrino doesn't negate real time vision although I would like to see a video where a neutrino is detected at the same time the Supernova (the actual explosion) is detected.

No, the neutrinos arrived before the supernova could be seen. If we see in real time, as it explodes, why would particles traveling at the speed of light arrive before or at the same time we could see it?

It should be like the photons arriving on Earth 8.5 minutes after we can see the Sun in Lessans scenario, in that the neutrinos should show up well after we see the supernova, since we see in real time and the neutrinos must travel the distance before we can detect them. That's not what happened though.

[thedoc]

I believe it has been pointed out that if a Super Nova were close enough that we could see the star go Nova in "real time" and receive the neutrino burst anywhere close to that time, the star would have to be close enough that the explosion would fry the earth and the entire solar system. We really don't want to see the Super Nova in real time, and receive the neutrino burst close to the same time, it would be the last thing we would see, and then there would be no "Golden age", or as we like to call it, "Lessans Brave New world".

[davidm]

It has also been pointed out that if we saw in real time, the whole night sky would be white. But it isn't, because the light from many stars and galaxies has not reached us in an expanding universe and a lot of it is red-shifted out of the visible spectrum. In a world of real-time seeing these conditions would not pertain, since according to peacegirl we wouldn't have to wait for the light to reach our eyes to see stuff. With the whole sky white, the average surface temperature would be about 10,000 degrees F and nothing would be alive.

But don't bother old Fart Head with facts. She knows what she "knows" and that's all that she knows.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, the neutrinos arrived before the supernova could be seen. If we see in real time, as it explodes, why would particles traveling at the speed of light arrive before or at the same time we could see it?

It should be like the photons arriving on Earth 8.5 minutes after we can see the Sun in Lessans scenario, in that the neutrinos should show up well after we see the supernova, since we see in real time and the neutrinos must travel the distance before we can detect them. That's not what happened though.

The neutrino burst is released from the Super Nova as much as several hours before the visible light, but neutrinos travel slightly slower that light, so the distance to the Super Nova is a major consideration. For a Near by Nova the Neutrinos will arrive first, when the star is very far away the neutrinos will arrive after the visible light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does that even mean? The explosion and the light from the explosion are one and the same visually. All we can see of distant stars is their light.

An explosion contains all kinds of elements. And what about interstellar matter? Remember the Magellan dust cloud? To see light is not to see the explosion. Do you not think this could change the direction of light through space/time? Being millions of lightyears away, I would think so.

interstellar matter

In astronomy, the interstellar medium is the matter that exists in the space between the star systems in a galaxy. This matter includes gas in ionic, atomic, and molecular form, dust, and cosmic rays. It fills interstellar space and blends smoothly into the surrounding intergalactic space. ...

Interstellar medium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia