A revolution in thought

[Ari]

He's saying that whether light takes 8.5 minutes or is instantaneous it would still appear to come from the same spot in the sky, the difference is that *changes to the light/sun* wont be seen for 8.5 minutes. Changes of the viewers positions happen instantaneous for the viewer so there's no travel time needed.

Originally Posted by But

Dude, you're lucky that Ari doesn't seem to get it either, otherwise I would make fun of you now.

Get prepared as it finally clicked.

[But]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just to be clear, are you saying that to an observer on the Earth, who is not moving on the surface of the Earth, the Sun would always be in the same position in the sky?

Over time? No. What I'm saying is that the speed of light doesn't matter when it comes to the apparent position of the Sun.

It really makes a difference here that the Sun isn't really moving up there.

Let's say you're seeing the Sun right now. That ray of light that's hitting you from that direction. Imagine the photons that are riding on that ray were twice as fast. Do you think they would hit you from a different direction now?

No, they don't. The light travels outward from the Sun with spherical wavefronts. If you think about rays, they go outward radially. That's the direction from where they hit absolutely everyone, no matter how they move, turn, whatever or where they are when. That direction doesn't depend on the speed of light. The Sun always stays in the center of those wavefronts.

[But]

Originally Posted by Ari

He's saying that whether light takes 8.5 minutes or is instantaneous it would still appear to come from the same spot in the sky, the difference is that *changes to the light/sun* wont be seen for 8.5 minutes. Changes of the viewers positions happen instantaneous for the viewer so there's no travel time needed.

Get prepared as it finally clicked.

I was trying to use the argument against instantaneous vision a couple of (hundred?) pages earlier until I noticed that oops, it doesn't work. In the meantime however, peacegirl bought it and went on about how it doesn't prove anything anyway.

[Ari]

The funny part to all of this is cameras provide a much more accurate and less processed image than the eye. Both your eye and brain do a massive amount of processing to give you an image. Your brain doesnt recieve a set of colors and intensities but a set of edges, angles and spatial data which is then translated to an image by the visual cortex. A camera sensor on the otherhand is just a photon counter which outputs charge strength of voltage buckets.

[thedoc]

If you look at the Sun and your vision is instantaneous, you will see it where it is now, but if the light takes 8.5 minutes to get here you will see it where it was 8.5 minutes ago. That will not be the same position in the sky, which is what I was saying, if you are saying something different about a different situation, please explain. And yes, if light travels twice as fast you will be in a different position when it gets here than if it travels at c, and the apparent position of the sun will be different.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Ari

He's saying that whether light takes 8.5 minutes or is instantaneous it would still appear to come from the same spot in the sky, the difference is that *changes to the light/sun* wont be seen for 8.5 minutes. Changes of the viewers positions happen instantaneous for the viewer so there's no travel time needed.

So far I have never experienced any instantaneous changes of my position, if you have, what were you smoking at the time.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Ari

The funny part to all of this is cameras provide a much more accurate and less processed image than the eye. Both your eye and brain do a massive amount of processing to give you an image. Your brain doesnt recieve a set of colors and intensities but a set of edges, angles and spatial data which is then translated to an image by the visual cortex. A camera sensor on the otherhand is just a photon counter which outputs charge strength of voltage buckets.

Some people (very few) see what is actually in front of them, most only see what they expect to see, and this is where the processing comes in. Apparently a few peoples brains do less processing than others. Also some people only read what they expect to read, and not what is actually written.

[But]

Originally Posted by Ari

The funny part to all of this is cameras provide a much more accurate and less processed image than the eye. Both your eye and brain do a massive amount of processing to give you an image. Your brain doesnt recieve a set of colors and intensities but a set of edges, angles and spatial data which is then translated to an image by the visual cortex. A camera sensor on the otherhand is just a photon counter which outputs charge strength of voltage buckets.

There is an insane amount of signal compression going on. I've heard the number 40 bits per second quoted for the amount of data that actually gets from the eyes to the visual cortex. However, I don't know how accurate that is or even where that number comes from, I just heard it in a lecture.

[But]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If you look at the Sun and your vision is instantaneous, you will see it where it is now, but if the light takes 8.5 minutes to get here you will see it where it was 8.5 minutes ago. That will not be the same position in the sky, which is what I was saying, if you are saying something different about a different situation, please explain. And yes, if light travels twice as fast you will be in a different position when it gets here than if it travels at c, and the apparent position of the sun will be different.

The Sun is not going around the Earth. It really makes a difference here.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

The Sun is not going around the Earth. It really makes a difference here.

No, but the Earth is going around the Sun, and the Earth is rotating, so the position of the observer will be different for each time of observing. The observer, in this case, is standing on the Earth and not moving on the surface of the Earth. So even if the Sun were stationary the apparent position is constantly changing, and 8.5 minutes will make a difference. I'm not talking about some stationary observer in space who is not moving in relation to the Sun.

[But]

Originally Posted by thedoc

No, but the Earth is going around the Sun, and the Earth is rotating, so the position of the observer will be different for each time of observing. The observer, in this case, is standing on the Earth and not moving on the surface of the Earth. So even if the Sun were stationary the apparent position is constantly changing, and 8.5 minutes will make a difference. I'm not talking about some stationary observer in space who is not moving in relation to the Sun.

Okay. Where would you have to look if you wanted to see the Sun and the speed of light was infinite?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

No, but the Earth is going around the Sun, and the Earth is rotating, so the position of the observer will be different for each time of observing. The observer, in this case, is standing on the Earth and not moving on the surface of the Earth. So even if the Sun were stationary the apparent position is constantly changing, and 8.5 minutes will make a difference. I'm not talking about some stationary observer in space who is not moving in relation to the Sun.

It is the rotation of the Earth around its own axis (not around the Sun) which produces a motion we might detect in an 8min time span. Imagine a piece of string connecting the sun with the observer. As the Sun moves through the sky, the string moves with it. The photons from the Sun are traveling in a straight line along that string. So the Sun really is where it appears to be.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by But

There is an insane amount of signal compression going on. I've heard the number 40 bits per second quoted for the amount of data that actually gets from the eyes to the visual cortex. However, I don't know how accurate that is or even where that number comes from, I just heard it in a lecture.

Its a pretty good estimate and why we cant just shove a camera in someones head to replace an eye. Basic estimates show the retina dumps about 10 million bits per second into the optic nerve but by the time it gets to the visual cortex its on the magnitude of 100 bps or less. The brain does a huge amount of post processing which is why we see a full pretty clear image of objects instead of reality which would be a tiny sharp spot sorrounded by blurry pixels of indeterminate things.

An eye also requires motion to see as it compares previous data to get its results. Theres actually a pretty freaky tech demo of this that tracks your eye and adjusts a projected image to match. Causing you to quickly go blind and stop seeing the image completely.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is the rotation of the Earth around its own axis (not around the Sun) which produces a motion we might detect in an 8min time span. Imagine a piece of string connecting the sun with the observer. As the Sun moves through the sky, the string moves with it. The photons from the Sun are traveling in a straight line along that string. So the Sun really is where it appears to be.

No, the photons would move straight out from the Sun and would not follow the string because the string would move with the planet and the observer, and move away from the photons. There are photons that have left the Sun going in all directions and most do not land on the Earth, but once they leave the sun they travel in a straight line, unless deflected by some force or object.

Yes the Earth rotates on it's own axis, and that causes the sun to have a different apparent position in the sky relative to the observer over time. The Earth also moves around the Sun, and that causes the Sun to have a different position in the sky over time, and 8.5 minutes is enough time for the Sun to change position in the sky. The revolution of the Earth around the Sun is what causes the stars to change apparent position for the different seasons.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Okay. Where would you have to look if you wanted to see the Sun and the speed of light was infinite?

If the speed of light were infinite, it would be the same as instant vision, and you would see the Sun exactly where it is. But we see the Sun after 8.5 minutes, so we see the Sun where it was 8.5 minutes ago. If both views happened at the same time, the sun would be in two different positions, 8.5 minutes (in time) apart, not 8.5 minutes of angular seperation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

No, the photons would move straight out from the Sun and would not follow the string because the string would move with the planet and the observer, and move away from the photons. There are photons that have left the Sun going in all directions and most do not land on the Earth, but once they leave the sun they travel in a straight line, unless deflected by some force or object.

Following the string is moving in a straight line out from the Sun. The apparent movement of the string is really just the observer moving from one radial from the Sun to another one.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Following the string is moving in a straight line out from the Sun. The apparent movement of the string is really just the observer moving from one radial from the Sun to another one.

The photons would continue to follow the original radial from the Sun and the planet and the string would move to the next radial, and the next, and the next, each time moving farther away from the original radial and the photon following that radial.

[thedoc]

We see the photons that have left the Sun 8.5 minutes ago traveling to the point where the observer will be in 8.5 minutes after the photons have left the Sun. Both the photons and the observer are traveling to that point but 8.5 minutes before that they are not in that position, and the apparent position of the Sun was not in the same place.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Following the string is moving in a straight line out from the Sun. The apparent movement of the string is really just the observer moving from one radial from the Sun to another one.

No, if the string is moving from one radial to the next a photon would not be following a straight line, it would start out in one direction and then change directions as the string advanced to the next radial. Once a photon leaves a source it is independent of that source and continues in a straight line unless acted on by some force or object, and an imaginary line from the source to an orbiting planet is not a force that can change the direction of the photon.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Following the string is moving in a straight line out from the Sun. The apparent movement of the string is really just the observer moving from one radial from the Sun to another one.

Following the string is a straight line, only if the source and the object are not moving, if the object is orbiting around the source, the string is moving in relation to the straight line that the photon is following.

[Spacemonkey]

Seriously, just draw it. It's not that complicated.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a foolproof way to spot a voodoo scientist. If a scientist claims to have a theory about a natural phenomenon but is unable to explain the theory in a simple language that the average layman can understand, one can be absolutely certain that he is as clueless about the nature of the phenomenon in question as anybody else.

Tell me again about how light is at the retina if the object is bright enough and big enough to be seen because when the object is within visual range the requirements for efferent sight have been met.

Also this means that anything you find too hard to understand is wrong. So we can write off quantum mechanics in it's entirely. Also relativity, which you still do not get. Do you know the logical structure behind a computer? I bet you don't. Whoops! Well I guess you are working a magical voodoo machine right now

[davidm]

I thought peacegirl might learn something from this excellent article at the
Smithsonian website.

Wait, peacegirl learn something? What was I thinking?

Nah.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's okay if you want to hold onto your concept of free will. It's just not going to allow us to continue what could have been a good conversation. The truth is we don't have any kind of free will --- even though the average person believes that having choices (without restraint or without a gun to your head, or being able to reason and think through the consequences) is what free will is.

The 2 sentences made italic contradict each other. You prove again you are just not a serious discussion partner.
You understand nothing, Peacegirl.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not found people online that will take the time to study this work. This book cannot be glossed over.

One has not to do much reading to recognise your father's book is absolute BS. The way you defend his (your) positions fully confirm that the book is utterly nonsense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Trick wants to interview me. I might take him up on it. How can you use the fact that I haven't reached the right people to read it and report on it as a measuring stick of this book's value?

Because the right people are not there. Of course you find people who defend that we have no free will, there are lots of them. But nobody with even the tiniest bit of understanding of science will defend your father's book. The moment Trick will read it, he will throw it away as the garbage it is. A few sentences in the book he might agree with, do not make the book any better.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No, honeybees do not "see in two different spectrums." After all this time, you apparently still don't even know what a "spectrum" actually is (much less what the plural of "spectrum" is). Amazing!


So, you're saying that a honeybee does see two different images when it looks at the Sun? Seriously? Again, I would point out to you that how honeybees see and navigate has been quite thoroughly studied, so I'd advise you to think carefully* before you answer.


And did you actually quote "Answers in Genesis," of all sources? You couldn't possibly have picked a less-appropriate and less-reliable source if you tried!




*Yes, I appreciate the futility of asking peacegirl to think.

It is a rare and really awesome gift, one that I am REALLY jealous of. PG can find pieces of information that seem applicable to the topic and seem tp support a point of view, but which upon closer inspection are pure poison to whatever side of the argument she is supporting.

I keep saying - we need to find a way of using this power for good.