A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Davidm, you are familiar with the concept of a debate, where each team is given a side of an issue to either defend or attack. The personal beliefs and the truth is not at issue, but who can present the most convincing argument determines the winner. To peacegirl winning will be to sell lots of books, so defending Lessans is of prime importance. He needs to be made to look good no matter what, so that she can use the debate in her promotions.

If her sole goal is to sell books, then the best thing for her to do would be to take out the balderdash about the sun and Rigel and etc. etc. Seeing that for the first time, anyone with a brain dismisses the whole book and of course wouldn't drop a dime for it.

[davidm]

Page 193.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

If her sole goal is to sell books, then the best thing for her to do would be to take out the balderdash about the sun and Rigel and etc. etc. Seeing that for the first time, anyone with a brain dismisses the whole book and of course wouldn't drop a dime for it.

Why do you keep talking about money? Winning the debate, doc and davidm, for the purpose of making Lessans look good to sell books is the farthest thing from my mind. I actually thought about taking that section out, because it does stop the discussion in its tracks, and that's what disturbs me the most. We have gotten nowhere in all of this time. I guess you both would hate it if I made a penny on this book after I put my heart, soul, and money into it. How vengeful can two people be?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you keep talking about money? Winning the debate, doc and davidm, for the purpose of making Lessans look good to sell books is the farthest thing from my mind. I guess you both would hate it if I made a penny on this book after I put my heart, soul, and money into it. How vengeful can two people be?

What I hate is the idea that you could make money off suckers selling this rubbish.

Hey, peacegirl, you contradicted your father! Now what?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Fuck off, asshat.

By the way, dumb bell, your "model" of sight says that what we see with the naked eye, or assisted by a telescope, when we look into space, must necessarily differ from the image recorded by a camera. However, what we see, and what the camera portrays, never differ, so your prediction is falsified, and Lessans is proved to be wrong. What now?

Won't someone be kind enough to post this so she can see it, or repeat the question to her. I would like her to answer the above question. Thanks!

Originally Posted by thedoc

Done, One of the things with the telescope was that we could see the star naked eye and if we looked thru a telescope we would not see the magnified image thill the light got here. Slight but important difference and only comes into play in the case of an event that changes the appearence of the star being observed.

Originally Posted by davidm

No, that is not what Lessans said. If peacegirl said something different, then she is in contradiction to The Great Man.

The Great Man specifically has a passage in which he says that when Columbus landed in the New World, if an astronomer on Rigel was looking at the earth through a powerful telescope, he would see Columbus landing in the New World without any time delay. Peacegirl has claimed that if the same telescope had a camera attached to it, the camera would not record Columbus landing on the New World until some nine hundred years later Rigel time, or however many light years Rigel is distant from the earth. (I think it's about nine hundred light years.)

Therefore, the test is simple. If peacegirl were right, then pictures of the heavens taken with cameras should ALWAYS DIFFER from what we see with the naked eye, or what we see looking through telescopes (per The Great Man). But, THEY NEVER DO. THEY ALWAYS AGREE.

Hence, Lessans' claims are false.

I'd appreciate it if you'd quote this as well so our resident scholar can see it, thedoc. Thanks!

I told you all I got confused. After carefully analyzing the problem (without using that passage that my father wrote), I realized that as long as the object or image is within the camera's field of view, then it works the same way as the eye would in an efferent model.

Originally Posted by davidm

You're right, so here is a case where Peacegirl contradicts Lessans, she clearly stated that the magnified image would need to wait for the light to arrive.

Peacegirl?

That's what I thought at first, but after carefully analyzing how cameras and telescopes work, there is no discrepency. The fact that I didn't even use that passage to come to my conclusion, just makes me realize all the more that he got it right. Eureeekaaaaa!!

Originally Posted by davidm

OH NOES! YOU HAVE CONTRADICTED THE GREAT INFALLIBLE ONE!!!1

I did contradict him not realizing it, and I was wrong. Not only is there no contradiction, but it explains why a picture with a camera and seeing the supernova comes out exactly the same. There is no discrepency between what the eye sees, and the picture a camera takes because it's the same view in real time. My confidence just went up 10 notches.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did contradict him not realizing it, and I was wrong. Not only is there no contradiction, but it explains why a picture with a camera and seeing the supernova comes out exactly the same. There is no discrepency between what the eye sees, and the picture a camera takes because it's the same view in real time. My confidence just went up 10 notches.

Cameras and telescopes work according to the known properties of light. A camera's mechanism is well understood and designed by humans to operate only on the principles of light. The image in a camera is formed through the detection of light and only light. If a camera works through the detection of light and only light, why doesn't the eye?

This is a question you need to be able to answer if anyone is willing to believe Lessans.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not why. I've just finished the final version. My kids want to read it. By the way, my son just called me and he passed his Boards. Yesssssssss!!!

Great news! Congratulations.

Never never never never never did my father put a noose around my neck. Never did he pressure me into doing anything. One time he said, you'll have to carry the ball, but he said it in a lighthearted way, not in a demanding way. My god, if he couldn't say that to his own daughter, who could he say it to? It was his life's work. But if I never looked at the book again, he would never have blamed me or manipulated me into feeling guilty. That is the antithesis of what this book stands for.

I am really not that sure. You fight so hard for something that - well I really don't think it is that great. And I assure you I have read the first two chapters at least a dozen times now. The way your father wrote - I know you'll hate me for saying this - but it strikes me as so self-congratulatory, such an attempt at playing the great and mighty philosopher, so grandiose and utterly convinced of his own rightness. It would be a lot easier to read if it wasn't so damn pompous! I cannot square the language of the book with the image that you obviously have of him -the image of a selfless, humble scholarly man.

And what makes me wonder doubly hard is that it seems impossible for him to be wrong in your eyes, even if it is about something that is trivial in the larger scope of the book. Your fathers ideas work fine without efferent vision - it is not required at all.

If your father was humble and non-manipulative, how come you consider him infallible? That does not add up to me.

No, because I never put it on them. My kids lead busy lives, although I'm sure when they have time, they will desire to share their grandfather's discovery with others.

I meant your siblings, actually. How do they feel about their fathers work? And if I were you I would not share this work with your children unless you are ready to accept that they might reject them and not let it harm your relationship with them.

Huh? What does that last sentence mean? I'm not human now? Oh my god, where are you coming from? You have misconstrued everything about this book, and the fact that everybody in here believes your quick synopsis of Chapters One and Two, and won't look into it any further, makes me realize that it is not me who has closed the door; it's the people in here who have closed the door to further investigation, and thrown away the key.

It means that I hope you do not let your fathers work overshadow your life, that's all. And that I hope you don't let it get in the way of the good things in it. That's all.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I do get it. I get it very, very well. I understand efferent vision and I understand the necessary consequences of it. You're the one who keeps contradicting yourself, you're the one who doesn't get it.

Efferent vision breaks the laws of physics, yet you stated it doesn't. So which is it?

Are you seriously prepared to throw out physics as well as biology based on Lessans' unsupported assertions? How do you suppose you can get a top scientist to do experiments on efferent vision, that you consider up to snuff, when you can't even explain the model in a way that makes it even possible without breaking all known physical laws?

Now that you've changed back to agreeing with Lessans, that cameras and telescopes can receive information instantaneously the same as eyes, you are even more in breach of physical laws.

As has been stated, cameras are designed to receive light and use the properties of the received light to create images. Telescopes use received light to magnify images. They are not eyes with a brain looking through them, so how did Lessans reckon they would work efferently like vision does?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

[
I meant your siblings, actually. How do they feel about their fathers work? And if I were you I would not share this work with your children unless you are ready to accept that they might reject them and not let it harm your relationship with them.
.

This is going to depend entirely on whether the book was presented after an education in the real world, or was it presented as bedtime reading as a young child. With the prior they would reject it as contradictory to reality. In the latter they could be indoctrinated as peacegirl was and continue the charade.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess you both would hate it if I made a penny on this book after I put my heart, soul, and money into it. How vengeful can two people be?

So it is about money.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Now that you've changed back to agreeing with Lessans, that cameras and telescopes can receive information instantaneously the same as eyes, you are even more in breach of physical laws.

As has been stated, cameras are designed to receive light and use the properties of the received light to create images. Telescopes use received light to magnify images. They are not eyes with a brain looking through them, so how did Lessans reckon they would work efferently like vision does?

Of course she had to change back to agreeing with Lessans! Musn't be a schismatic.

Still unexplained in all this idiocy is as follows: Why, if the camera (without a brain) and the eye (with a brain) picks up the light instantly, is that not also the case for the neighbor standing right beside you? Remember, under this lunatic assertion, people standing right next to each other will see the sun instantly when it is turned on, but will have to wait eight and a half minutes to see each other. Why, for fuck's sake? No explanation, of course!

The only difference is, the light off the neighbor is reflected light, and the light from the sun is source light. But even peacegirl has agreed that it's the same light! And, if we are to suppose that in this case, there is something special about reflected light, that makes it appear much later than the source light of which it is composed, why did Lessans say that one could see the moon instantly? Evidently the Great Man forgot that the moon reflects the light of the sun, and is not a source of light!

Had either Lessans or peacegirl had the slightest understanding of relativity theory, matter and energy, they would know that all of this, in addition to being illogical, self-contradictory and nonsensical, is simply physically impossible. The Lone Ranger explained why in some detail in an earlier post. Peacegirl, did you read that post? Because among other things, it established that information transfer would require infinite energy to work in the way that you imagine. And please don't retreat to your hoary old "no information is transmitted" bullshit. Seeing the sun off (state 0) and then on (state 1) is information transfer by definition, regardless of how the eyes operate. This is impossible in the physical universe. So sorreh!

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was trying to find out how far the Earth is from the edge of our galaxy. If a supernova was within our galaxy (two I believe were), Lone Ranger said it would burn us up if we were seeing the actual images in real time, but would it?

over hundreds of light-years....note: 1 light year = 5.9 trillion miles in distance... The Milky Way
is over 100,000 light years across. Pluto is over a billion miles away from the sun, which isnt the
end of our solar system. That gives you the idea on how far away the edge of our galaxy is.

I said no such thing and you know it. Where I'm from, we call that lying.

What I pointed out is that Supernova 1987a took place in another galaxy. Thus it couldn't possibly have been less than several thousand light-years distant. Yet we photographed it within minutes of it becoming visible to the naked eye. Which neatly disproved what you were then claiming: namely that the eyes somehow see in "real time," but that cameras and telescopes cannot detect something until the light reaches them.

In response, you suggested that the directly measured distance of the supernova was mistaken. This despite the fact that even if the measurements were off by orders of magnitude (look it up), the supernova would still have been thousands of light-years distant.

When it was pointed out to you that the distance to the supernova was directly measured, using only basic trigonometry and the most well-established of universal constants, the speed of light, you actually suggested that physicists were perhaps wrong about the speed of light. This despite your claim that you wouldn't contradict physics, because you don't know enough about it.*

The only way to reconcile what you were then claiming -- that the human eye sees in "real time," but telescopes and cameras do not -- with the fact that we photographed the supernova within minutes of it becoming visible would be if the supernova were not just inside our galaxy, but inside our Solar System. And if that were the case (as if we could have somehow missed the presence of a star much larger and brighter than the Sun that was closer to us than the planet Neptune), the supernova explosion would have destroyed the Earth.


*I don't know why on Earth you'd make such a silly claim as that you wouldn't challenge physics, because you don't know enough about it. (Overlooking the fact that real-time vision in any form is flatly ruled out by our most well-established physical principles.) After all, you'd displayed exactly zero knowledge of the physiology of sight and of neural function, yet you blithely insist that everything we know in these fields is wrong.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Which neatly disproved what you were then claiming: namely that the eyes somehow see in "real time," but that cameras and telescopes cannot detect something until the light reaches them.

She has abandoned that claim, Michael, after we reminded her that Lessans said telescopes would see in real time. Evidently she forgot the scriptures of The Great Man!



Of course, we are still left to wonder how information in any form can propagate instantaneously (it can't, as you so clearly explained) and how it is that we would see the sun instantly when it is turned on, but not our neighbor for eight and a half minutes!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Cameras and telescopes work according to the known properties of light. A camera's mechanism is well understood and designed by humans to operate only on the principles of light. The image in a camera is formed through the detection of light and only light. If a camera works through the detection of light and only light, why doesn't the eye?

This is a question you need to be able to answer if anyone is willing to believe Lessans.

specious_reasons, what have I been saying this whole time? Light is a condition of sight. Light is what allows us to see ANYTHING AT ALL. It's just that light alone, without the object or image in view, would never be able to travel through space and time, strike someone's eye, and the wavelength be transduced into a chemical-electrical signal that the brain then decodes into an image of something that happened hundreds or even thousands of years ago.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you are repeating the premise as if it were absolute fact. This is what is being disputed, so I don't get it if you think you have proven Lessans wrong. Are you kidding me???

That time flows differently in different places isn't just theoretical, it's an established, well-tested fact. Einstein demonstrated in his theory of General Relativity that this must be the case, and subsequent testing has demonstrated it. It's not like this information is difficult to find.

Not only is it an established fact, we have to take it into account in order for many of our modern devices to function. An object in orbit around the Earth experiences less gravity than does an object on the Earth's surface. Therefore, time runs slightly faster for the object in orbit. We actually have to take this fact into account in calculation positions with a GPS system. The GPS satellites that provide us with the data that we use for calculating global position are experiencing a slightly faster passage of time than we are here on Earth.

If we don't take that into account when doing our calculations, then the position reported by a GPS satellite drifts away from the true position at a rate of 10 - 11 kilometers per day. All due to the fact that time passes differently on the satellite and on the Earth's surface.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

She has abandoned that claim, Michael, after we reminded her that Lessans said telescopes would see in real time. Evidently she forgot the scriptures of The Great Man!

You did not remind me of anything David. I came to this realization myself, without your help.

Originally Posted by davidm

Of course, we are still left to wonder how information in any form can propagate instantaneously (it can't, as you so clearly explained) and how it is that we would see the sun instantly when it is turned on, but not our neighbor for eight and a half minutes!

Take out the word 'propagate', (because this word implies something is being transmitted) and maybe you'll follow Lessans' reasoning, otherwise there's no chance.

Propogate definition:

1) To cause (an organism) to multiply or breed.
2) To breed (offspring).
3) To transmit (characteristics) from one generation to another.
4) To cause to extend to a broader area or larger number; spread: missionaries who propagate the faith.
5) To make widely known; publicize: propagate a rumor.
6) Physics To cause (a wave, for example) to move in some direction or through a medium; transmit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So it is about money.

It's not at all about money. Can't you read doc? I said it took money to get this book published, and for you to throw up money in my face as if I'm using this forum as a publicity stunt is a flat out lie.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

specious_reasons, what have I been saying this whole time? Light is a condition of sight. Light is what allows us to see ANYTHING AT ALL. It's just that light alone, without the object or image in view, would never be able to travel through space and time, strike someone's eye, and the wavelength be transduced into a chemical-electrical signal that the brain then decodes into an image of something that happened hundreds or even thousands of years ago.

And yet, there's a perfectly functioning theory on just precisely how this all works. There is no necessity for the object to be present now, because the object was in our line of sight, when the light emanated from it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You did not remind me of anything David. I came to this realization myself, without your help.

Take out the word 'propagate', (because this word implies something is being transmitted) and maybe you'll follow Lessans' reasoning, otherwise there's no chance.

Propogate definition:

1) To cause (an organism) to multiply or breed.
2) To breed (offspring).
3) To transmit (characteristics) from one generation to another.
4) To cause to extend to a broader area or larger number; spread: missionaries who propagate the faith.
5) To make widely known; publicize: propagate a rumor.
6) Physics To cause (a wave, for example) to move in some direction or through a medium; transmit.

Round and round on the merry-go-round of lunacy you go!

US: If the light doesn't need to propagate for you to see it, then how do you see it? HOW do you see it instantaneously?

PEACEGIRL Oh, well, it's because of efferent seeing!

US: Oh, OK. But HOW??? What is the MECHANISM OF THIS MIRACLE????

PEACEGIRL Don't ask me how! You might as well ask, "how does the grass grow?"

[davidm]

And of course, let's not forget, boys and girls, (assuming anyone would forget), the eye is not an efferent structure!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Now that you've changed back to agreeing with Lessans, that cameras and telescopes can receive information instantaneously the same as eyes, you are even more in breach of physical laws.

As has been stated, cameras are designed to receive light and use the properties of the received light to create images. Telescopes use received light to magnify images. They are not eyes with a brain looking through them, so how did Lessans reckon they would work efferently like vision does?

A camera is taking a picture of an object or image using the light that is being reflected. The wavelength is present in the camera's field of view, therefore, the light does not have to travel thousands of light years to get here. To repeat: If efferent vision is correct, all that is needed is a camera, an object or image within the field of view, and light that is being reflected or emitted from said object or image. This does not breach any physical laws because light is still the one condition that is necessary.

Originally Posted by davidm

Of course she had to change back to agreeing with Lessans! Musn't be a schismatic.

Still unexplained in all this idiocy is as follows: Why, if the camera (without a brain) and the eye (with a brain) picks up the light instantly, is that not also the case for the neighbor standing right beside you? Remember, under this lunatic assertion, people standing right next to each other will see the sun instantly when it is turned on, but will have to wait eight and a half minutes to see each other. Why, for fuck's sake? No explanation, of course!

Why do you keep repeating this over and over? Obviously, this was hypothetical because the sun's light is already here. This example was meant to show was how efferent vision would work, IF God suddenly turned on the sun.

Originally Posted by davidm

The only difference is, the light off the neighbor is reflected light, and the light from the sun is source light. But even peacegirl has agreed that it's the same light! And, if we are to suppose that in this case, there is something special about reflected light, that makes it appear much later than the source light of which it is composed, why did Lessans say that one could see the moon instantly? Evidently the Great Man forgot that the moon reflects the light of the sun, and is not a source of light!

We could not see the moon instantly if it was not reflecting any of the sun's light. But if it was reflecting the sun's light, we would see it instantly because the requirements for being able to see the moon instantly would have been met.

Originally Posted by davidm

Had either Lessans or peacegirl had the slightest understanding of relativity theory, matter and energy, they would know that all of this, in addition to being illogical, self-contradictory and nonsensical, is simply physically impossible. The Lone Ranger explained why in some detail in an earlier post. Peacegirl, did you read that post? Because among other things, it established that information transfer would require infinite energy to work in the way that you imagine. And please don't retreat to your hoary old "no information is transmitted" bullshit. Seeing the sun off (state 0) and then on (state 1) is information transfer by definition, regardless of how the eyes operate. This is impossible in the physical universe. So sorreh!

Yes I read it. But this is not the transfer of information (whether you call it bullshit or not), therefore you're not comparing apples to apples. You keep comparing apples (afferent vision) to oranges (efferent vision), therefore you will never be able to understand, let alone accept, his observations (even if it was validated by science). I never said light doesn't travel, and if this is what you mean by information transfer, then that's fine.

[davidm]

Now I’ll sum up why your father is wrong, Peacegirl, in a very succinct way. Then I’ll demonstrate how you will respond.

1. Logically, there are only three possible ways that light can travel. Either it propagates at infinite velocity, or it propagates at a finite but fixed velocity, or it propagates at variable velocities. Logically, those three choices exhaust all the options. This is true, regardless of how the eye works.

2. Source light and reflected light are the same light, regardless of how the eye works.

It turns out that light does not travel infinitely fast. Its velocity is both fixed and variable. That is to say, it travels at fixed velocity c in a vacuum, but at slightly slower rates of speed in mediums like water.

Moreover — and this is crucial — it does not ever travel faster than c.

What is more, due to relativity theory, we know that non-photons, which (unlike photons) have rest mass, cannot be accelerated to light speed. This is because, as acceleration is increased, the mass of non-photons increases; and as the velocity of the accelerated object approaches c, the mass increases exponentially toward infinity.

This means that no object can be propelled to light speed, for doing so would require an infinite amount of energy. To propel a pencil or a teardrop for an atom to c, would require infinite energy.

But, since light itself cannot exceed light speed, the conclusion is inescapable: There is an upper-bound speed limit to the transfer of information. It is c: the speed of light in a vacuum.

Seeing the sun turned on is information transfer by definition. This is true regardless of how the eyes work. Change of state from 0 (off) to 1 (on) just is information.

Therefore, since the speed limit of information transfer in the universe is c, real time seeing is IMPOSSIBLE. Q.E.D.

This means that, when the sun is turned on, this information — that it has been turned on — will not become available to viewers on earth until 8.5 minutes have passed, meaning that they will see the sun as it was 8.5 minutes in the past, when the light arrives. This is true — it’s logically the case — regardless of how the eyes work.

Also, it logically follows from all this that the source light and the reflected light of your neighbor will be seen at the same time, and not at different times, as Lessans claimed. His claim is logically impossible, and this is true regardless of how the eyes work.

We can now construct this as a formal argument with premises and a conclusion.

P1 — the speed of light is fixed and cannot exceed c
P2 — No object can be accelerated to c.
Preliminary conclusion — Instantaneous Information Acquisition is physically impossible, because c is an upper-bound speed limit.
P3 — Regardless of how the eyes work, the state change of the sun from 0 (off) to 1 (on) is information transfer by definition.
Conclusion — Lessans claim of Instantaneous Information Acquisition is false, regardless of how the eye works.

Here’s how peacegirl will read the above:

P1 — the speed of light is fixed and cannot exceed c
P2 — No object can be accelerated to c.
Preliminary conclusion — Instantaneous Information Acquisition is physically impossible, because c is an upper-bound speed limit.
P3 — Regardless of how the eyes work, the state change of the sun from 0 (off) to 1 (on) is information transfer by definition.
Conclusion — LESSANS IS ALWAYS RIGHT!

[The Lone Ranger]

It's worth pointing out (again) that vision involves movement of information by definition. When we're seeing something, information is moving from the object to the eyes/brain by definition. Otherwise, we wouldn't be seeing it.

Vision is defined as the acquisition of (visual) information about things outside our bodies.

So information must travel in order for us to see, and this is true no matter how the information is acquired.

It doesn't matter in the slightest how the information moves between the object being seen and the eyes/brain -- it could be carried by light or the brain could somehow "reach out" and acquire it -- the fact remains that information has moved from the object being seen to the eyes/brain.


And if there's anything that modern physics regards as an unassailable truth, it's that instantaneous movement of anything (certainly including information) between two points is impossible. So, as has been pointed out repeatedly, modern physics categorically rules out real-time seeing.

So does physiology too, of course, for different reasons.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

And of course, let's not forget, boys and girls, (assuming anyone would forget), the eye is not an efferent structure!

If the brain is looking out, through the eye, at the real world, it doesn't need a single efferent structure to accomplish this feat. Efferent fibers deal with motor activity, so it doesn't even apply.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the nervous system, efferent nerves – otherwise known as motor or effector neurons – carry nerve impulses away from the central nervous system to effectors such as muscles or glands (and also the ciliated cells of the inner ear). The term can also be used to describe relative connections between nervous structures (for example, a neuron's efferent synapse provides input to another neuron, and not vice-versa). The opposite activity of direction or flow is afferent.

The motor nerves are efferent nerves involved in muscular control. The cell body of the efferent neuron is connected to a single, long axon and several shorter dendrites projecting out of the cell body itself. This axon then forms a neuromuscular junction with the effectors. The cell body of the motor neuron is satellite-shaped. The motor neuron is present in the grey matter of the spinal cord and medulla oblongata, and forms an electrochemical pathway to the effector organ or muscle. Besides motor nerves, there are efferent sensory nerves that often serve to adjust the sensitivity of the signal relayed by the afferent sensory nerve.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We could not see the moon instantly if it was not reflecting any of the sun's light. But if it was reflecting the sun's light, we would see it instantly because the requirements for being able to see the moon instantly would have been met.

Oh, reaaalllllly?

You honestly are so indoctrinated by this nonsense that you cannot spot its obvious internal contradictions. So the reflected light of the moon would be seen instaneously along with the source light of the sun, when the sun is turned on. Okie-dokie!

Now here's the 64 million dollar question:

If that is the case, then why would you not also see the reflected light of your neighbor instantaneously? Why would you have to wait eight and a half minutes to see the reflected light of your neighbor, when you are seeing the reflected light of the moon instantaneously, along with the source light of the sun??????