A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That is not what your father says in the holy book.

The fact that you are trying to conflate the seasonal change with the change in distance, indicates that you have no understanding of the issue at all.

In the 2011 copy of the book, in chapter 4, page 120, Lessans clearly states that the farther away an object is, the smaller it will look. He used the example of the Sun and the Moon appearing to be about the same size, because the Sun is much farther away, even though it is much larger.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

In the 2011 copy of the book, in chapter 4, page 120, Lessans clearly states that the farther away an object is, the smaller it will look. He used the example of the Sun and the Moon appearing to be about the same size, because the Sun is much farther away, even though it is much larger.

You're so confused. In this example there is a change in actual distance between two objects, not just the light. The object is actually moving farther away so it appears smaller.

[Vivisectus]

Let me get this straight... if things that are closer seem bigger when seen through a telescope, your books theory on vision is incorrect?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Let me get this straight... if things that are closer seem bigger when seen through a telescope, your books theory on vision is incorrect?

No Vivisectus. Things that are closer seem bigger when seen through a telescope, but in the case of Jupiter's Io, the actual object was not moving closer. That is why I'm wondering if the light caused the image of Io to look larger as it got closer. That would reaffirm afferent vision.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Vivisectus. Things that are closer seem bigger when seen through a telescope, but in the case of Jupiter's Io, the actual object was not moving closer. That is why I'm wondering if the light caused the image of Io to look larger as it got closer. That would reaffirm afferent vision.

That is the exact same as saying "something that is closer seems bigger in a telescope".

Or do you think images that are moving towards you seem bigger?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're so confused. In this example there is a change in actual distance between two objects, not just the light. The object is actually moving farther away so it appears smaller.

No, in this example the Sun is changing distance to the Earth much less that Jupiter is changing distance. It seems that you are confusing "red shift" with a change in size due to an object moving towards us or away from us. Movement relative to the Earth will only change size as the distance changes, the actual movement doesn't affect the size of the image.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The object is actually moving farther away so it appears smaller.

Things that are moving away appear smaller, and things that are moving towards us seem bigger?

Seriously?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Vivisectus. Things that are closer seem bigger when seen through a telescope, but in the case of Jupiter's Io, the actual object was not moving closer. That is why I'm wondering if the light caused the image of Io to look larger as it got closer. That would reaffirm afferent vision.

The distance between the Earth and Jupiter Io is usually changing a lot, it is rarely the same distance for long and almost always changing the distance to the Earth. An object looks larger as it gets closer because it is closer and covers more area in our field of vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Things that are moving away appear smaller, and things that are moving towards us seem bigger?

Seriously?

Objects that are farther away from us look smaller than the same sized object that is closer to us. I don't know what the big deal is.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Vivisectus. Things that are closer seem bigger when seen through a telescope, but in the case of Jupiter's Io, the actual object was not moving closer.

That is why I'm wondering if the light caused the image of Io to look larger as it got closer. That would reaffirm afferent vision.

Actually your statement about Jupiter and Io is incorrect, they are moving in relation to the Earth, about half the time moving toward the Earth and half the time moving away.

Your next statement is correct, the closer an object is the larger is will look, and it does reaffirm afferent vision. I wonder if you are finally seeing reality.

[But]

Io | ESO

Despite the small angular diameter of Io, about 1.2 arcsec, many features are visible at this excellent optical resolution.

Using the distance from Jupiter to Earth on December 5, 2001 (4.28611 AU), I get 1.17 arcseconds. No surprise there.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Objects that are farther away from us look smaller than the same sized object that is closer to us. I don't know what the big deal is.

Because that is not what you said, you said that an object moving toward us would look larger than an object moving away from us, assuming the same size and distance at the time of the observations.

[But]

Another one:

HST NICMOS Images of Io in Jupiter's Shadow

The image on the left is an HST NICMOS image acquired while Io was in Jupiter's shadow on 7/19/98 at 14:44 UT. This 224 second exposure (NIC1, F145M filter, 0.043 arcseconds/pixel, Io diameter 1.144 arcseconds) of Io's Jupiter-facing hemisphere shows thermal emission from numerous hot spots.

Using the distance from Earth on 19 July 1998 of 4.40791 AU (www.calsky.com), I get 1.14 arcseconds. Still no surprise.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Objects that are farther away from us look smaller than the same sized object that is closer to us. I don't know what the big deal is.

You didn't say that at all, though!

Anyway, go look at the pictures and measurements But is providing. Io is does indeed appear smaller when it's further away and appears larger when it's closer. It matches the expected calculations perfectly. So what?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Vivisectus. Things that are closer seem bigger when seen through a telescope, but in the case of Jupiter's Io, the actual object was not moving closer. That is why I'm wondering if the light caused the image of Io to look larger as it got closer. That would reaffirm afferent vision.

Well, of course it does. And yes, it does reaffirm afferent vision. In fact, if sight was efferent, there would be no reason something would seem smaller when it is farther away.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, after all this are you finally going to admit that efferent vision is wrong and we see by afferent vision. Along with that are you going to admit that your father was wrong about vision and we see in delayed time and not instantly?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

You didn't say that at all, though!

Anyway, go look at the pictures and measurements But is providing. Io is does indeed appear smaller when it's further away and appears larger when it's closer. It matches the expected calculations perfectly. So what?

Is it possible that the reason Io appears smaller or larger is because of its movement toward or away from Earth, which is why there would be a 17 minute delay? This would be in keeping with what thedoc said, although he was trying to use his statement against me.

Actually your statement about Jupiter and Io is incorrect, they are moving in relation to the Earth, about half the time moving toward the Earth and half the time moving away.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, after all this are you finally going to admit that efferent vision is wrong and we see by afferent vision. Along with that are you going to admit that your father was wrong about vision and we see in delayed time and not instantly?

I did not say efferent vision was wrong. I said that the interpretation given by Roemer may not be correct. I have yet to see proof that the light was responsible for the delay of 17 minutes and not the movement of Jupiter and Io toward or away from Earth (in which case the time element would come into play and account for the discrepancy). Isn't it true that when an object is farther away from the viewer, it may take longer for that object to come into view than an object that is closer?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is it possible that the reason Io appears smaller or larger is because of its movement toward or away from Earth, which is why there would be a 17 minute delay? This would be in keeping with what thedoc said, although he was trying to use his statement against me.

At the time of the observations of Io, the moon is about stationary as far as distance from the Earth, both Io and the Earth are moving sideways and the distance is not changing. So there would be no change in size due to the moon moving towards us or away from us. The delay of 16.7 minutes is strictly due to the extra distance the light has to travel to get to the Earth, there is no other factor to consider. Are you ready to admit that you are wrong?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Well, of course it does. And yes, it does reaffirm afferent vision. In fact, if sight was efferent, there would be no reason something would seem smaller when it is farther away.

You're incorrect Vivisectus. We would see a smaller or larger object depending on how far away it was. If an object was out of our field of view there would be no resolution and therefore we wouldn't get an image. If the object moved into our field of view, we would see it according to its position relative to us, but we would be seeing the actual object; we wouldn't be interpreting the light. The only difference is that in the efferent account we would be seeing it in real time, not in delayed time, as believed.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say efferent vision was wrong. I said that the interpretation given by Roemer may not be correct. I have yet to see proof that the light was responsible for the delay of 17 minutes and not the movement of Jupiter and Io toward or away from Earth (in which case the time element would come into play and account for the discrepancy). Isn't it true that when an object is farther away from the viewer, it may take longer for that object to come into view than an object that is closer?

The interpretation given by Roemer has been verified many times since his initial observations, it has only been made more accurate, but the original interpretation has not changed. When an object is farther away from the viewer it takes longer for the light to get to the viewer, but as soon as the viewer looks at the object the viewer can see the object because the light is constantly arriving, as long as the line of sight is not blocked. As soon as the line of sight is open the light will be able to travel to the viewer, and that viewer will be able to see the object when the light arrives. If the block of view is close to the viewer, the object could be visible very quickly, if the block is closer to the object and far away from the viewer it might take longer for the viewer to see the object. Light cannot travel to the viewer through the block and will begin it's journey only after the block has moved out of the line of sight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

At the time of the observations of Io, the moon is about stationary as far as distance from the Earth, both Io and the Earth are moving sideways and the distance is not changing. So there would be no change in size due to the moon moving towards us or away from us. The delay of 16.7 minutes is strictly due to the extra distance the light has to travel to get to the Earth, there is no other factor to consider. Are you ready to admit that you are wrong?

No. If there is no change in size due to the actual moon moving towards us or away from us, then please find photos (I'm looking also) where one can see (or an instrument can detect) an increase in size due to light as it travels and strikes the telescope. But seems to thinks the photo he posted shows this by its measurements. If that's the case, then maybe that's enough proof for you. I'm just not convinced that all of the factors that have to be in place for this conclusion to be the only explanation, are airtight.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is it possible that the reason Io appears smaller or larger is because of its movement toward or away from Earth...

Why would you think movement does anything of the sort? I thought you said this wasn't what you meant just a moment ago.

[The Lone Ranger]

Goal: Distract everyone from the repeatedly-demonstrated fact that astronomical observations thoroughly disprove Lessans' claims.

Tactic: Introduction of yet another utterly ridiculous and thoroughly-disproved idea as a "possible explantion" for "discrepancies," while disingenuously pretending to be searching for understanding.

Status: Distraction achieved.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're so confused. In this example there is a change in actual distance between two objects, not just the light. The object is actually moving farther away so it appears smaller.

No, in this example there was no mention of the objects moving in relation to the viewer, it was assumed that the viewer and the objects were at a constant distance, you are lying.