A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

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

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

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

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

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

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

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

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

A supernova is an explosion by definition, so what the hell are you talking about?

You don't know? The original premise has been taken for granted, so how do we know what the hell anyone is talking about?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am saying that the world saw a star suddenly get much larger and brighter a few hours after neutrinos arrived. I am asking you whether that increase in size and brightness was seen in real time, or after the light had time to travel the intervening distance.

Obviously the light had time to travel the intervening distance, but this tells us nothing as far as what we are actually seeing. I will say, once again, that you will not win the Nobel Prize LadyShea for being smarter than Lessans.

[Spacemonkey]

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

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

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

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

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

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously the light had time to travel the intervening distance, but this tells us nothing as far as what we are actually seeing. I will say, once again, that you will not win the Nobel Prize LadyShea for being smarter than Lessans.

Amazing. LadyShea asked a very simple quesiton: do we see that explosion in 'real time' or with a delay, and you completely weasled out of answering.

I'd point out LadyShea appears to be ten times smarter than Lessans, but that's damning with faint praise.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

interstellar matter

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

Interstellar medium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

None of that matter is what is/was visible to the naked eye or looking through a small telescope at a supernova. All we can see is the light.

As for interstellar matter, the air in between objects on Earth is similar matter (gases), but you can't see it, right?

So, quit weaseling and address the points and answer the question.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't know? The original premise has been taken for granted, so how do we know what the hell anyone is talking about?

You are so dishonest, Weasel. You didn't even address the points. Yes, it is taken for granted that a supernova is an explosion, since that is what a supernova is. It's what the word means. We have to be able to take the meaning of words for granted to some extent or we couldn't communicate.

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

Obviously the light had time to travel the intervening distance, but this tells us nothing as far as what we are actually seeing.

So you are now contradicting Lessans, as well as flip flopping on yourself again. According to Lessans and you when it is convenient, anything we can see, we are seeing as it happens and not after waiting the time it takes light to reach Earth. You are also dishonestly weaseling as I asked "when" we could see things, not "what" we could see...quit moving the goalposts!

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

You cannot apply efferent vision to any actual observed phenomena nor answer simple, basic questions abut it. Your model fails.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about? Magnification works in both accounts because light travels. Even though we see in real time we're constantly using light that is being replaced by new traveling photons.

When did I ever say light doesn't travel?

You said light speed (an inherent factor in traveling light) "was not the issue" and had no bearing on magnification, this is dishonest weaseling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not have a true believer head in the sand attitude.

Of course you do.

I am not being persecuted so I don't have a persecution complex

You've claimed to feel the victim of a witch hunting, crucifying, gang raping, book burning, lynch mob intent on your and Lessans ruination. That is a persecution complex. Normal scholars and scientists don't talk like that when their ideas are attacked...it is only used by crackpots and paranoids.

I am not weaseling dishonestly.

You did so in this very post, you do so in most every post.

I'm trying to answer the questions as honestly as I can.

Now that's just a lie. You evade, move the goalposts, change the subject, and flip flop.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Duh. You're not addressing the question.

Irrelevant to the question

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

contradict yourself much?

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

If neutrinos travel at the speed of light, then it follows we would see light near the same time. You are assuming that these neutrinos came from millions of lightyears ago. How do you know that? How do you know that the explosion is not in real time? How do you know that Jupiter's moon is light only? You are just parroting what science says. Science has been known to be wrong when their premises turned out to be flawed. Is that why you ask me who else agrees with the book, as if this proves or disproves its validity?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

They say neutrinos weakly interact with particles of matter. That is not the same with light. Light does interact with particles of matter which would change the course of light due to refraction. So how can we get a replica of what happened millions of lightyears away when space is filled with intergalactic matter that light is bound to strike on its long journey?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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

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

That's a crock. The sky would not be all white. There would still be vast amounts of space between stars. You're like Chicken Little who thought the sky was falling because something hit him on the head.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Amazing. LadyShea asked a very simple quesiton: do we see that explosion in 'real time' or with a delay, and you completely weasled out of answering.

I'd point out LadyShea appears to be ten times smarter than Lessans, but that's damning with faint praise.

I am trying to answer in an intelligible way. I don't understand how light traveling through space/time for 11 million lightyears does not encounter any kind of interstellar medium? I understand that neutrinos are too small and weak to interact, but what about light? Wouldn't that mean the path of light would be altered and therefore the image?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about? Magnification works in both accounts because light travels. Even though we see in real time we're constantly using light that is being replaced by new traveling photons.

When did I ever say light doesn't travel?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said light speed (an inherent factor in traveling light) "was not the issue" and had no bearing on magnification, this is dishonest weaseling.

It isn't the issue because it doesn't matter which photon we're using to see. But light does travel and light does refract, and nothing changes here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not have a true believer head in the sand attitude.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course you do.

I'm listening to everything you're saying. I still believe there are loopholes.

I am not being persecuted so I don't have a persecution complex

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've claimed to feel the victim of a witch hunting, crucifying, gang raping, book burning, lynch mob intent on your and Lessans ruination. That is a persecution complex. Normal scholars and scientists don't talk like that when their ideas are attacked...it is only used by crackpots and paranoids.

The attitude in here sucks. There have been ad hominen attacks as well as insults, expletives and disgusting satires at Lessans' expense. I'm happy he didn't have to hear this garbage. The emotion in here is as thick as it gets, and if people had a chance to tar and feather me, they would. This has been a witch hunt as soon as they heard the claim regarding the eyes.

Noun[edit]
witch-hunt (plural witch-hunts)

(historical) A search for witches, persons believed to be using sorcery or harmful magic, in order to persecute and typically kill them.

*** An attempt to find and publicly punish a group of people perceived as a threat, usually on ideological or political grounds.  [quotations ▼]
A public smear-campaign against an individual.

witch-hunt - Wiktionary

I am not weaseling dishonestly.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You did so in this very post, you do so in most every post.

Whatever.

I'm trying to answer the questions as honestly as I can.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Now that's just a lie. You evade, move the goalposts, change the subject, and flip flop.

Whatever.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said "if" the Sun were this far away. I was just making a comparison to other stars.

You don't know? The original premise has been taken for granted, so how do we know what the hell anyone is talking about?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are so dishonest, Weasel. You didn't even address the points. Yes, it is taken for granted that a supernova is an explosion, since that is what a supernova is. It's what the word means. We have to be able to take the meaning of words for granted to some extent or we couldn't communicate.

But that can be a problem. If certain premises are taken for granted, AND THEY ARE WRONG, then the conclusions will also be wrong. I'm not talking about basic definitions.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

True.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am saying that the world saw a star suddenly get much larger and brighter a few hours after neutrinos arrived. I am asking you whether that increase in size and brightness was seen in real time, or after the light had time to travel the intervening distance.

Obviously the light had time to travel the intervening distance, but this tells us nothing as far as what we are actually seeing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you are now contradicting Lessans, as well as flip flopping on yourself again. According to Lessans and you when it is convenient, anything we can see, we are seeing as it happens and not after waiting the time it takes light to reach Earth.

I said nothing about reaching Earth but there still has to be enough light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are also dishonestly weaseling as I asked "when" we could see things, not "what" we could see...quit moving the goalposts!

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

I'm not moving the goalposts. He said the light would have to reach us, so light matters. We cannot see if there is no light because the star would be too far away.

The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a large star,
the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have light with
which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that their light
diminishes before it gets to us.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You cannot apply efferent vision to any actual observed phenomena nor answer simple, basic questions abut it. Your model fails.

No it doesn't. How do we know that this Supernova wasn't in real time, right as it was happening? I'm still not sure how neutrinos would disprove this especially when they could be detected before or after the explosion.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to answer in an intelligible way. I don't understand how light traveling through space/time for 11 million lightyears does not encounter any kind of interstellar medium? I understand that neutrinos are too small and weak to interact, but what about light? Wouldn't that mean the path of light would be altered?

You just have to look at the picture. There is a clear line of sight to the stars. There's obviously not very much matter between there and here. What does that have to do with anything?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

You just have to look at the picture. There is a clear line of sight to the stars. There's obviously not very much matter between there and here. What does that have to do with anything?

I'm not talking about there to here. I'm talking about the image that would not remain intact if light had any kind of contact with interstellar matter on its original journey that began 168,000 lightyears before. Isn't this a theory and couldn't this give support for real time seeing? Under the efferent vision model, we would get a clear picture of a star gone Supernova if there was a clear line of sight before the Supernova took place, which there was.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will say, once again, that you will not win the Nobel Prize LadyShea for being smarter than Lessans.

If being smarter than Daddy Dumb-Dumb (Lessans) were the criteria for winning a Nobel Prize, everyone on this forum, nay everyone in the world and their brothers would have one or more. And there are many people who would have enough to cover their walls with them. And at that point the Nobel Prize would be about as valuable as Lessans book.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to answer in an intelligible way. I don't understand how light traveling through space/time for 11 million lightyears does not encounter any kind of interstellar medium? I understand that neutrinos are too small and weak to interact, but what about light? Wouldn't that mean the path of light would be altered and therefore the image?

Yes it does and the phenomenon is known and accounted for in afferent vision. Some very distant Galaxies, that are directly behind (from the view from the Earth) some other bright massive object, can only be seen because of the "Gravitational Lens" effect, and this is also one of the ways black holes can be detected. The light that is passing by this massive object that would not have traveled to the Earth, is bent so that it now is directed to the Earth and can be seen. All this depends on light traveling from the object to the earth, and would be impossible in efferent vision, in fact the object would not be visible at all in efferent vision because it is out of the line of sight, it is not in our "field of view". As far as altering the image, yes that is correct, the Galaxies now appear as an arc just a little to the side of the object.


One other point, some light is absorbed and blocked by the interstellar medium (dust clouds, etc.), but not all of it. So astronomers are not seeing all the light in the Universe, just that which has made it to the Earth.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a crock. The sky would not be all white. There would still be vast amounts of space between stars.

IF the universe is infinite in extent and IF there are an infinite number of stars and IF we see instantly then it follows that in any direction we look, we will be looking at at star. The whole sky would be white hot.

I suppose you can wriggle out of it by claiming the view of distant stars is blocked by intervening gas or dust. With normal rules this wouldn't make any difference as that gas or dust would also 'see' the stars so it would be heated up to white hot too. But under your system the gas or dust wouldn't 'see' the distant stars instantly (unless it happened to form a lens or pinhole) so it wouldn't heat up until the light arrived.

Having a speed of light and a separate (infinite) speed of seeing allows you to escape this (Olber's) paradox.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

IF the universe is infinite in extent and IF there are an infinite number of stars and IF we see instantly then it follows that in any direction we look, we will be looking at at star. The whole sky would be white hot.

I suppose you can wriggle out of it by claiming the view of distant stars is blocked by intervening gas or dust. With normal rules this wouldn't make any difference as that gas or dust would also 'see' the stars so it would be heated up to white hot too. But under your system the gas or dust wouldn't 'see' the distant stars instantly (unless it happened to form a lens or pinhole) so it wouldn't heat up until the light arrived.

Having a speed of light and a separate (infinite) speed of seeing allows you to escape this (Olber's) paradox.

We discussed Olbers' paradox with her years ago, just like everything else. She doesn't know or care. She no longer has a brain. She can't recall any topic that has been discussed; reality is opaque to her. She can't even understand her father's own gibberish.

No, peacegirl, there would NOT be "vast amounts of space between the stars" if Lessans were right about light and sight. Everywhere we looked, our eyes could not fail to intersect a star in the sky. Of course that's just in a manner of speaking, since there would be no eyes. Eyes cannot exist in temperatures of 10,000 degrees F, which is about what earth's temperature would be if the whole sky were white. Dingbat.

[thedoc]

Astronomers can determine the type of Super Nova from it's spectrum, and from that can estimate how long before the visible burst of light, was the neutrino burst. They can also estimate the absolute brightness, and compared to the apparent brightness, can estimate the distance. By knowing approximately how long before the visible light the neutrino burst was, and comparing the time of the detection of the neutrino burst on Earth and the detection of visible light on earth, the astronomers can estimate the distance to the Super Nova. With these 2 estimates, which are always close, astronomers have a good estimate of the distance. All this depends on the light and the neutrinos traveling from the Super Nova to the Earth and proves that we see Super Nova in delayed time and not instantly. If we saw the Super Nova in "real time" we would always detect the neutrino burst many thousands of years after we would see the Super Nova explosion, and it would be very difficult to correlate the 2 observations. As it is, with afferent vision the correct model, astronomers can get advanced warning of the onset of a Super Nova by the detection of the neutrino burst for relatively close Super Nova.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

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

interstellar matter

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

Interstellar medium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by LadyShea

None of that matter is what is/was visible to the naked eye or looking through a small telescope at a supernova. All we can see is the light.

As for interstellar matter, the air in between objects on Earth is similar matter (gases), but you can't see it, right?

We're talking about dust made up of particles. This has a dimming effect on light.

Interstellar Medium and the Milky Way

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're talking about dust made up of particles. This has a dimming effect on light.

Interstellar Medium and the Milky Way

And? What is your point here?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

IF the universe is infinite in extent and IF there are an infinite number of stars and IF we see instantly then it follows that in any direction we look, we will be looking at at star. The whole sky would be white hot.

I don't get that. Every space in the sky is not made up of an infinite amount of stars. Just because the claim is that we see stars in real time doesn't mean the sky would be white hot because there are great distances between the stars that we see. Some are so far away that we don't see them at all even with the most powerful telescopes. This distance would prevent stars from taking over the sky or from burning us up as TLR suggested.

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

I suppose you can wriggle out of it by claiming the view of distant stars is blocked by intervening gas or dust. With normal rules this wouldn't make any difference as that gas or dust would also 'see' the stars so it would be heated up to white hot too. But under your system the gas or dust wouldn't 'see' the distant stars instantly (unless it happened to form a lens or pinhole) so it wouldn't heat up until the light arrived.

Having a speed of light and a separate (infinite) speed of seeing allows you to escape this (Olber's) paradox.

Very true. These are two entirely separate phenomena that people are conflating.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

And? What is your point here?

My point is that these dust particles may have an effect on the color and dimming of the star to the point of extinction due to scattering. This really doesn't have to do with whether we see in delayed or real time, but it is interesting to note that the faintness of the star may have more to do with dust than with the star's actual distance.

[ceptimus]

Here's the animated gif from the Wikipedia page on Olber's paradox that shows how, if there are an infinite number of stars and you can see at a distance instantly and ignoring any factor that may block the 'seeing' with increasing distance then the sky would all be as bright as the surface of a star - in every direction you looked you'd be looking straight at a star surface.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to answer in an intelligible way.

No you're not.