A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, we could if it met the conditions. But you are failing to understand that real time vision does not mean light is not at the camera, telescope, or eyes. It would be, but in the case of infrared photography, the object wouldn't be seen (it couldn't unless there was a way to convert the information to a visual image) since the infrared light is not within the visual spectrum.

You and Lessans have failed to understand that light cannot be anywhere till it has had time to travel over the distance at c.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You and Lessans have failed to understand that light cannot be anywhere till it has had time to travel over the distance at c.

Correction: Lessans didn't even bother to think about it. He just made his grand pronouncement and decided he would let others figure out how it actually worked.

Now it's in the incapable hands of peacegirl to work out the impossible details.

BTW, most cameras, which may or may not see in real time, depending on how the wind is blowing can detect infrared. In fact, digital cameras have an internal IR filter because otherwise daylight picture would be overexposed. They can also see into the UV range as well.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Correction: Lessans didn't even bother to think about it. He just made his grand pronouncement and decided he would let others figure out how it actually worked.

I don't believe that Lessans was even thinking about others figuring it out, as you said he made his grand pronouncement and expected everyone to accept it at face value because he said so. He even said so in the book and that he would consider no objections because he believed the knowledge to be self evident, and Peacegirl is upholding that tradition.

[thedoc]

It occurs to me that reading Peacegirl's posts is like reading the posts of a person who has been locked in a room her whole life. She may have read her father's book but does not seem to have any knowledge of the real world. She is constantly making posts that betray her lack of knowledge, except for the erroneous ideas in the book. It makes you wonder how she can function in the real world, unless she has someone to lead her around.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, we could if it met the conditions.

If we can see the sun instantly, the light can't have possibly reached the mirror yet - that takes 8 minutes. So light reflecting off a mirror has nothing to do with how mirrors work.

So I ask again: how do mirrors work, given we can see things in them instantly, when not enough time has passed for light to reach the mirror?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

If we can see the sun instantly, the light can't have possibly reached the mirror yet - that takes 8 minutes. So light reflecting off a mirror has nothing to do with how mirrors work.

So I ask again: how do mirrors work, given we can see things in them instantly, when not enough time has passed for light to reach the mirror?

If it is a refraction telescope it would still be focusing the light, just like the eyes would be doing. I know it sounds crazy when you say how can light be at the lens when the light hasn't gotten to Earth yet where the telescope is, but it is there as a mirror image, just like you see a mirror image of a tree in water.

[GdB]

Back from holiday. Peacegirl, specially for you I made this picture:



It are images of the sun, seen through the holes between leafs. At right above the middle is a pretty sharp image but it is not very bright. Obviously, it is a small hole. Right just below the middle you see to brighter ones, a bit blurred, partially overlapping. Obviously 2 bigger holes, close to each other. At the place where these images overlap, would the sun appear immediately, or only after 8 minutes?

A few remarks about the discussion of last week:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But, if you don't understand that the mechanism is due to the eyes working the opposite of what is believed, there's nothing more I can say.

You do not understand either. You have never explained it to us.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It seems to me they do, but maybe they don't. Maybe they just collect patterns of light regardless of whether the object is present. Since it takes time for the light to reach the lens, a delayed photograph is what appears to be the only answer.

Huh? So a camera works as we said all the time? Are you seeing the light?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? So if the hole is as big as a crater, you will still get an image?

The answer is "yes" of course. You just must put the screen hundreds of miles away. What you forget (even when you link to websites that explain it) is that it is not the size of the hole on its own, but the ratio between the size of the hole and the distance to the screen (and if distances become huge the distance to the objects viewed muss also take into account).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the requirements are met, that doesn't mean the light at the object doesn't impinge on the retina. When we see the object, this MEANS that the wavelength/frequency (the information the light contains to allow us to see said object) is INSTANTLY at the eye (no travel involved) because we wouldn't be able to see the object otherwise.

You are using this 'wavelength/frequency' more often. The question is: the wavelength/frequency of what? The only candidate I see is light, and as you confirmed, light takes time to travel.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are getting confused because of your false conception of the mechanism that allows light to be at the retina in this account without light having to travel to Earth. I have always maintained that light has to be at the retina for the object to be seen, but you're failing to understand how this can be accomplished, hence you call it magic.

You are failing to explain how this can be accomplished. You have no explanation. If you have, give it; if you don't, admit you don't have it. You simple have no idea.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to understand something that you're not. You have to look at this as opposite of what is believed to be true. When you do this, you will see that there is no violation of physics whatsoever.

So I have to take your idea for granted to see that it is correct? That amounts to 'believe it is true, and you see it is true'. Sorry, does not work. And information arriving without delay is in contradiction with relativity. And don't forget you can't explain why because of a simple pinhole the light (yes, the image on the screen is light, why otherwise would we be able to see it?) arrives instantaneous.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

False! Everything that works in the afferent account works in the efferent account. EVERYTHING!!!!! The only difference is that one believes sight is delayed, and the other says that sight is instant. You cannot disprove him by your examples. Sorry GdB, but you lose.

In the first place: that is no explanation whatsoever. So try again. Explain the phenomena described.

In the second place, your answer is absolutely absurd. You say efferent vision works exactly the same as afferent vision. But afferent vision is based on light traveling through space, air (and holes because, at least on earth the hole itself is nothing but air), glass, the eye's pupils, etc etc. But, without any mechanism that you can explain involved, as soon as there is an image, it appears instantaneously. So there must be a difference in the workings of afferent vision and efferent vision. And there must be a reason, a mechanism, an explanation for that difference. Not just a statement they differ in this respect.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't agree that this is the only conclusion one can come to.

We know what the only conclusion is that you will ever come to, no matter what reality says.

But what is your explanation? If you don't have a rock solid explanation for what is observed, this observation alone kills the whole idea.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

We know what the only conclusion is that you will ever come to, no matter what reality says.

But what is your explanation? If you don't have a rock solid explanation for what is observed, this observation alone kills the whole idea.

But, if Lessans was right regarding his explanation as to how the brain works in relation to words, and this defies the delayed light theory of sight, then this observation alone kills the whole idea of afferent vision. You aren't even considering his findings. I even posted a lot of the chapter and what do I get? More of the same questions regarding light. I guess you don't think this ability of the brain to project words onto substance which conditions the brain, has anything to do with the direction in which we see yet it's the entire reason for his claim.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But, if Lessans was right regarding his explanation as to how the brain works in relation to words, and this defies the delayed light theory of sight, then this observation alone kills the whole idea of afferent vision. You aren't even considering his findings. I even posted a lot of the chapter and what do I get? More of the same questions regarding light. I guess you don't think this ability of the brain to project words onto substance which conditions the brain, has anything to do with the direction in which we see yet it's the entire reason for his claim.

Apart from the fact that words have nothing to do with how vision works and there is no explanation at all, this is completely hypothetical (notice your own use of the word "if"?).

The observation of Jupiter's moons is real and easily verified even with amateur equipment. If you can't explain it, the whole idea is dead.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Back from holiday. Peacegirl, specially for you I made this picture:



It are images of the sun, seen through the holes between leafs. At right above the middle is a pretty sharp image but it is not very bright. Obviously, it is a small hole. Right just below the middle you see to brighter ones, a bit blurred, partially overlapping. Obviously 2 bigger holes, close to each other. At the place where these images overlap, would the sun appear immediately, or only after 8 minutes?

They would appear immediately, but the image would be overlapping and not well defined.

Originally Posted by GdB

A few remarks about the discussion of last week:

You do not understand either. You have never explained it to us.

I did explain it and I posted a large portion of the text after you left. It really isn't fair to Lessans to take parts out of the book without reading it in sequence, but I did it anyway just to bring to the table why he believed what he did.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It seems to me they do, but maybe they don't. Maybe they just collect patterns of light regardless of whether the object is present. Since it takes time for the light to reach the lens, a delayed photograph is what appears to be the only answer.

Originally Posted by GdB

Huh? So a camera works as we said all the time? Are you seeing the light?

Yes I'm seeing the light, but only in real time. I wrote this because I am using your reasoning, which makes it appear that this is the only answer. Why do you think it's so difficult to conceive of the possibility that we see in real time? Because it's not an easy thing to figure out coming from the afferent perspective, or the belief that light travels with the pattern through space/time and strikes the eye or camera. That seems to be the ONLY logical conclusion. But is it????

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? So if the hole is as big as a crater, you will still get an image?

Originally Posted by GdB

The answer is "yes" of course. You just must put the screen hundreds of miles away. What you forget (even when you link to websites that explain it) is that it is not the size of the hole on its own, but the ratio between the size of the hole and the distance to the screen (and if distances become huge the distance to the objects viewed muss also take into account).

Correct. I was thinking only of the ratio between a pinhole and the resultant projection, but this phenomenon actually supports his claim; it does not detract from it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the requirements are met, that doesn't mean the light at the object doesn't impinge on the retina. When we see the object, this MEANS that the wavelength/frequency (the information the light contains to allow us to see said object) is INSTANTLY at the eye (no travel involved) because we wouldn't be able to see the object otherwise.

Originally Posted by GdB

You are using this 'wavelength/frequency' more often. The question is: the wavelength/frequency of what? The only candidate I see is light, and as you confirmed, light takes time to travel.

Yes, light travels, that is true, but the question remains: does it do what scientists think it does? Is it alone responsible for sight? If Lessans is right, the object is absolutely necessary to get a picture. No object = no image.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are getting confused because of your false conception of the mechanism that allows light to be at the retina in this account without light having to travel to Earth. I have always maintained that light has to be at the retina for the object to be seen, but you're failing to understand how this can be accomplished, hence you call it magic.

Originally Posted by GdB

You are failing to explain how this can be accomplished. You have no explanation. If you have, give it; if you don't, admit you don't have it. You simple have no idea.

You said the same thing about my lack of knowledge regarding compatibilism and why we have this kind of free will, which is a useful definition but does not conform to reality. Definitions mean nothing as far as reality is concerned. I have given an explanation which came indirectly, not from the study of light. He continued to reason based on his observation as to how the brain works and concluded that we must be seeing in real time or the brain would not be able to do what it does in relation to words. If he was wrong regarding how the brain and eyes work, or he was wrong regarding the conclusion that he came to as a result, then he would be wrong regarding his claim that we see in real time. But if he is right on both counts, then his findings cannot be simply ignored if people are searching for the truth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to understand something that you're not. You have to look at this as opposite of what is believed to be true. When you do this, you will see that there is no violation of physics whatsoever.

Originally Posted by GdB

So I have to take your idea for granted to see that it is correct? That amounts to 'believe it is true, and you see it is true'. Sorry, does not work. And information arriving without delay is in contradiction with relativity. And don't forget you can't explain why because of a simple pinhole the light (yes, the image on the screen is light, why otherwise would we be able to see it?) arrives instantaneous.

It's not about arriving GdB which indicates travel time. It's about the wavelength/frequency already being at the eye because it provides an instant mirror image, but this has nothing to do with distance or time. He does not deny that light travels which takes 8 minutes to arrive. Do you see the difference between the two?

Originally Posted by GdB

If you cannot explain why efferent vision suddenly appears when I make a hole in a piece of carton, this idea is dead.

Seeing the object in real time rather than decoding the image from light works in the hypothetical situation Lessans gave because of the reasons given: that is, there has to be enough light coming from the object to be bright enough to be seen (enough photons to be resolved or the object will be too dim), and that the object is large enough to be seen (the ACTUAL object is within our field of view). If either of these are missing, we won't see anything. This is in keeping with optics; the only difference being that light has ONLY to be at the object because it's not light alone that is bringing anything to us; we are using light (IOW, light becomes a condition of sight, not a cause) to see the actual object. Therefore, in this hypothetical example we would see the Sun before we would see a person right next to us, which would take 8 minutes.

Originally Posted by GdB

If you cannot explain why efferent vision suddenly appears when lenses get better and better (the gliding scales!), this idea is dead.

I'm not sure how lenses getting better and better kill this idea. From what I understand, it would only make the image that much clearer. You have to remember the whatever we see coming from the perspective that light travels to bring the image (afferent vision) versus seeing the image in real time, are exactly the same.

Originally Posted by GdB

If you cannot explain how efferent vision does not contradict relativity, your idea is dead.

How? I'm not sure how relativity is contradicted. There may be a conflict with special relativity and the bending of space/time due to gravity.

relativity: The key concept to remember is the equivalence principle, which states that gravity pulling in one direction is equivalent to acceleration in another. This is why an accelerating elevator provides a feeling of increased gravity while rising and decreased gravity while descending. If gravity is equivalent to acceleration, then it means gravity (like motion) affects measurements of time and space.

Originally Posted by GdB

If you cannot explain how a lens can project an image by bundling the light, without the light getting at the lens, your idea is dead.

False! Everything that works in the afferent account works in the efferent account. EVERYTHING!!!!! The only difference is that one believes sight is delayed, and the other says that sight is instant. You cannot disprove him by your examples. Sorry GdB, but you lose.

Originally Posted by GdB

In the first place: that is no explanation whatsoever. So try again. Explain the phenomena described.

Let me repeat: The study of light is not how he came to his conclusions. You can't just go by the established theory (by using the same observations that formed the theory in the first place) when this is what is being challenged. You have to go by Lessans' finding as a starting point.

Originally Posted by GdB

In the second place, your answer is absolutely absurd. You say efferent vision works exactly the same as afferent vision. But afferent vision is based on light traveling through space, air (and holes because, at least on earth the hole itself is nothing but air), glass, the eye's pupils, etc etc. But, without any mechanism that you can explain involved, as soon as there is an image, it appears instantaneously. So there must be a difference in the workings of afferent vision and efferent vision. And there must be a reason, a mechanism, an explanation for that difference. Not just a statement they differ in this respect.

I've said all along that the mechanism that allows us to see in real time has to do with the direction we see. If Lessans is right the function of light changes in that it becomes a bridge to the external world, but the properties of light don't change so it does not violate the laws of physics.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it is a refraction telescope it would still be focusing the light, just like the eyes would be doing.

What are you babbling about? What telescope?

Do we see the sun in a mirror instantly? If so, how do mirrors work? It can't have anything to do with reflecting light. If we see things in a mirror instantly, the light hasn't had time to get to the mirror yet!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

What are you babbling about? What telescope?

Do we see the sun in a mirror instantly? If so, how do mirrors work? It can't have anything to do with reflecting light. If we see things in a mirror instantly, the light hasn't had time to get to the mirror yet!

Don't tell me I'm babbling Dragar; it's out of line and rude.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They would appear immediately, but the image would be overlapping and not well defined.

And what with 3 holes close to each other, with 3 images overlapping? 10? 100? 10,000?

Again we have the 'gliding scale' question. You have no mechanism, and therefore no criterion for when efferent vision 'sets in'.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did explain it and I posted a large portion of the text after you left. It really isn't fair to Lessans to take parts out of the book without reading it in sequence, but I did it anyway just to bring to the table why he believed what he did.

Nowhere is the mechanism explained. There must lie physics at the basis of an explanation. Point me to the physics of Lessans' description of efferent vision. Saying that it must be bright enough and in the field of vision is no explanation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wrote this because I am using your reasoning, which makes it appear that this is the only answer. Why do you think it's so difficult to conceive of the possibility that we see in real time?

It is not difficult. It is just plain wrong. It is against the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it's not an easy thing to figure out coming from the afferent perspective, or the belief that light travels with the pattern through space/time and strikes the eye or camera. That seems to be the ONLY logical conclusion. But is it????

You are right, it is not the only logical conclusion. But it is the only physical conclusion. Given the laws of nature we know it takes time for the light of objects to get here, the light that can be used to create an image. (I always read this funny notion of you of a pattern or image that is transferred by light. There is no image transferred by light. A photon that is used as part of a picture differs in nothing from a photon that falls just on a piece of white paper. Only when we distribute the photons according to the direction the fall onto a screen, by means of a lens or pinhole, that we create an image. There is no image transferred by light.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Correct. I was thinking only of the ratio between a pinhole and the resultant projection, but this phenomenon actually supports his claim; it does not detract from it.

How does that support your claim? In theory we could have a hole as big as the moon, and a screen billions of miles away. It would create a perfect pinhole camera. Would we also have instantaneous vision? Even if it takes hours for the light to get from the moon-size pinhole to the screen?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, light travels, that is true, but the question remains: does it do what scientists think it does? Is it alone responsible for sight? If Lessans is right, the object is absolutely necessary to get a picture. No object = no image.

This is no answer on my question at all. About what stuff are you talking that has a wavelength and and a frequency?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have given an explanation which came indirectly, not from the study of light. He continued to reason based on his observation as to how the brain works and concluded that we must be seeing in real time or the brain would not be able to do what it does in relation to words. If he was wrong regarding how the brain and eyes work, or he was wrong regarding the conclusion that he came to as a result, then he would be wrong regarding his claim that we see in real time. But if he is right on both counts, then his findings cannot be simply ignored if people are searching for the truth.

Trust me. He is wrong. Lessans' knew next to nothing about the brain. And what has this to do with lenses and pinholes? There is no brain involved in the images produced by photo cameras and pinhole cameras.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's about the wavelength/frequency already being at the eye because it provides an instant mirror image, but this has nothing to do with distance or time.

Again, if you don't say the wavelength/frequency of what, your sentence is empirically empty. And your 'because' is no 'because': if it should have a physical meaningful connection then it is in the opposite direction. It provides an instant mirror image, because the wavelength/frequency is already at the eye. That has the form of a physical explanation. But as such it is absolute meaningless.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He does not deny that light travels which takes 8 minutes to arrive. Do you see the difference between the two?

Yes, I do. I see nonsense at one side, and a true physical proposition at the other.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seeing the object in real time rather than decoding the image from light works in the hypothetical situation Lessans gave because of the reasons given: that is, there has to be enough light coming from the object to be bright enough to be seen (enough photons to be resolved or the object will be too dim), and that the object is large enough to be seen (the ACTUAL object is within our field of view). If either of these are missing, we won't see anything. This is in keeping with optics; the only difference being that light has ONLY to be at the object because it's not light alone that is bringing anything to us; we are using light (IOW, light becomes a condition of sight, not a cause) to see the actual object. Therefore, in this hypothetical example we would see the Sun before we would see a person right next to us, which would take 8 minutes.

Again, you explain nothing, why do you think you get through with just repeating your ideas instead of explaining the physical basis of it. I asked for the explanation, not for the conditions under which efferent vision exists. The conditions should follow physically from the way the mechanism works.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure how lenses getting better and better kill this idea.

Because somewhere between a flat piece of glass and polishing it to a perfect lens, the instantaneous occurring of the image should happen. Is our subjective impression 'yeah, that seems already to be an image' a physical criterion?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

From what I understand, it would only make the image that much clearer. You have to remember the whatever we see coming from the perspective that light travels to bring the image (afferent vision) versus seeing the image in real time, are exactly the same.

But there is no image at all when the glass is still perfectly plane. And why this needless doubling of reality? If light produces exactly the image that we also see in efferent vision? How can Lessans' observations about the brain, can lead to the conclusion of instantaneous vision with lenses and pinholes, and where in our daily life distances are so short that this difference between a nanosecond and instantaneous cannot be observed by our eyes?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How? I'm not sure how relativity is contradicted. There may be a conflict with special relativity and the bending of space/time due to gravity.

relativity: The key concept to remember is the equivalence principle, which states that gravity pulling in one direction is equivalent to acceleration in another. This is why an accelerating elevator provides a feeling of increased gravity while rising and decreased gravity while descending. If gravity is equivalent to acceleration, then it means gravity (like motion) affects measurements of time and space.

Gravity has nothing to do with it. Are you really so stupid: different people have said it repeatedly: it is in conflict with special relativity that says that no energy or information can travel faster than light. And special relativity is proven to the bone. It is absolutely fundamental to how our world is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let me repeat: The study of light is not how he came to his conclusions. You can't just go by the established theory (by using the same observations that formed the theory in the first place) when this is what is being challenged. You have to go by Lessans' finding as a starting point.

But it is a physical fact that the eyes work with light. Do you deny that? And light behaves according to certain laws of nature.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've said all along that the mechanism that allows us to see in real time has to do with the direction we see. If Lessans is right the function of light changes in that it becomes a bridge to the external world, but the properties of light don't change so it does not violate the laws of physics.

No, but Lessans postulates some second mechanism that allows instantaneous vision. And for some crazy reason you say that this works the same way with a pinhole camera, for which there already is a very precise simple explanation based on traveling light.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

it's out of line and rude.

That is rich Peacegirl, you who have insulted and been rude to everyone on this forum, are now, and before, complaining about others being rude to you. You reap what you sow, after some abuse, people tend to reply in kind. You are just getting back, what you have given out in the past. You're just a whiny little cry-baby cause you can't get your way.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have given an explanation which came indirectly, not from the study of light. He continued to reason based on his observation as to how the brain works and concluded that we must be seeing in real time or the brain would not be able to do what it does in relation to words. If he was wrong regarding how the brain and eyes work, or he was wrong regarding the conclusion that he came to as a result, then he would be wrong regarding his claim that we see in real time. But if he is right on both counts, then his findings cannot be simply ignored if people are searching for the truth.

And if he had studied light at all, he wouldn't have written such stupid stuff in his book.

He was wrong in his claims about vision.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't tell me I'm babbling Dragar; it's out of line and rude.

So how do mirrors work?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So how do mirrors work?

This is all that is necessary:

Almost all telescopes use mirrors to gather and focus the light from objects in the night sky.

How telescopes "see" :: NASA Space Place

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

There is nothing that would guarantee that a person would strive to achieve such standards. The promise of high returns will inhibit the expenditure of a lot of time and money in favor of a quick return on as small an investment as possible.

In your brave new world order a doctor would simply rake in as much as possible before leaving town.

I have gotten what Lessans, in his delusions, thought would happen, but I'm a realist and I can see what real people would do if given the opportunity.

If I am not entirely mistaken there was time in the history of the United States when the very conditions that Lessans' describes obtained. The practice of medicine was largely unregulated. Snake oil salesman could travel the country with their medicine shows and sell any old concoction and make all the extravagent claims they wanted to. They could claim to be doctors and hang out a shingle. The only limiting factor regulating their practice was the customers' level of credulity and their willingness to tolerate chicanery and quackery.

Lessans' ideas are not a prescription for a brave new world. They are a blueprint for the bad old days.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But, if Lessans was right regarding his explanation as to how the brain works in relation to words, and this defies the delayed light theory of sight, then this observation alone kills the whole idea of afferent vision. You aren't even considering his findings. I even posted a lot of the chapter and what do I get? More of the same questions regarding light. I guess you don't think this ability of the brain to project words onto substance which conditions the brain, has anything to do with the direction in which we see yet it's the entire reason for his claim.

Originally Posted by But

Apart from the fact that words have nothing to do with how vision works and there is no explanation at all, this is completely hypothetical (notice your own use of the word "if"?).

Did you read the post where I cut and pasted a large portion of the chapter? I use the term "if" because people don't think he proved his case even though I believe he did. There's nothing wrong with using the term "if". I am going along with the skepticism that people are feeling until they are satisfied with the proof.

Originally Posted by But

The observation of Jupiter's moons is real and easily verified even with amateur equipment. If you can't explain it, the whole idea is dead.

I know people can see Jupiter's moon. The question is whether they're interpreting the image of the moon from light, or whether they're seeing the actual moon as it is. They could still calculate the speed of light by the difference that it takes for light to arrive from the location of IO based on the Earth's orbit which is either closer or farther away from Jupiter during different times of the year.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If I am not entirely mistaken there was time in the history of the United States when the very conditions that Lessans' describes obtained. The practice of medicine was largely unregulated. Snake oil salesman could travel the country with their medicine shows and sell any old concoction and make all the extravagent claims they wanted to. They could claim to be doctors and hang out a shingle. The only limiting factor regulating their practice was the customers' level of credulity and their willingness to tolerate chicanery and quackery.

Lessans' ideas are not a prescription for a brave new world. They are a blueprint for the bad old days.

You are another one that has no understanding of why these principles work, not even a clue. You couldn't explain the two-sided equation if I paid you, but you sure can spout off a lot of nonsense comparing a snake oil salesman in the world we're living to someone practicing medicine in the new world. A snake oil salesman does not feel any contrition for misleading people since there is always a way to justify his actions. A doctor in the new world would never be able to take advantage of people for his own remuneration because there will be no way to justify his actions.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know people can see Jupiter's moon. The question is whether they're interpreting the image of the moon from light, or whether they're seeing the actual moon as it is. They could still calculate the speed of light by the difference that it takes for light to arrive from the location of IO based on the Earth's orbit which is either closer or farther away from Jupiter during different times of the year.

Astronomers are measuring the speed of light according to what they see, not some recorded image dissociated from the eye. What they observe when they measure the speed of light is the exact same image they observe when they observe the moons of Jupiter. There is a delay in observing the Moons of Jupiter. Instant vision is false. Lessans was wrong.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know people can see Jupiter's moon. The question is whether they're interpreting the image of the moon from light, or whether they're seeing the actual moon as it is. They could still calculate the speed of light by the difference that it takes for light to arrive from the location of IO based on the Earth's orbit which is either closer or farther away from Jupiter during different times of the year.

No, it's about when the moon can be seen. The use of this observation to measure the speed of light only works because there is a delay. If vision were real-time, then this method wouldn't work.

You still don't understand the observation, right?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is all that is necessary:

Almost all telescopes use mirrors to gather and focus the light from objects in the night sky.

How telescopes "see" :: NASA Space Place

Perhaps this is true among the large professional observatories, but there are a lot more amateur telescopes in existence than professional, and the bulk of them are Refractors rather than reflectors. I used to sell telescopes to amateur astronomers, and I sold more refractors than reflectors.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are another one that has no understanding of why these principles work, not even a clue. You couldn't explain the two-sided equation if I paid you, but you sure can spout off a lot of nonsense comparing a snake oil salesman in the world we're living to someone practicing medicine in the new world. A snake oil salesman does not feel any contrition for misleading people since there is always a way to justify his actions. A doctor in the new world would never be able to take advantage of people for his own remuneration because there will be no way to justify his actions.

I believe that profit would be adequate justification.

Lessans believed in self regulation, which would be the same as no regulation at all. Probably because he objected to those in authority telling him what to do and how to do it, he wanted to be free to cheat people in a business deal. After all he was a salesman, just another name for a professional lier.