A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

These images were not made by bouncing photons off the Milky Way Galaxy. The radio telescopes made them by focusing long-wavelength light in essentially the same way that an optical telescope focuses shorter-wavelength (visible) light onto a sensor, where the image is recorded.

Hi Lone Ranger. How have you been? That even makes more sense in support of Lessans' claim because focusing the light is what occurs, but that does not mean that in either optical or radio telescopes light is all that is necessary. If what Lessans is saying turns out to be true, focusing light without the object would not give us an image of anything.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

By the way, there are plenty of animals that can see into the infrared and ultraviolet parts of the spectrum that are "invisible" to us humans.

So, do you seriously expect us to believe that when a bee is observing the "nectar guides" on a flower (which are only visible if you can see ultraviolet light), that it sees them in delayed time, while the patterns that it observes in "visible" light are seen instantly?

Or perhaps you think a bee's eyes work differently from ours?

I believe they see like we do except they see other parts of the light spectrum that we can't. I don't know to what extent bees use their eyes for identification, but that's beside the point.

[The Lone Ranger]

So ... radio telescopes "see" in real time then?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We observe the same thing in both accounts.

No, we don't. You claim that we see Jupiter and its moons as they are right now, science says we see them as they were a couple of minutes ago.

Explain how the eclipses of Jupiter's moons are used to measure the speed of light. Look it up and then explain it in your own words, in detail.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So ... radio telescopes "see" in real time then?

No, they don't see in real time. Lessans never said anything about the way in which light or radio waves are detected. Radio telescopes detect radio waves that travel through space/time the same way optical telescopes detect photons.

A radio telescope is simply a telescope that is designed to receive radio waves from space. In its simplest form it has three components:

One or more antennas to collect the incoming radio waves. Most antennas are parabolic dishes that reflect the radio waves to a receiver, in the same way as a curved mirror can focus visible light to a point.
A receiver and amplifier to boost the very weak radio signal to a measurable level. These days the amplifiers are extremely sensitive and are normally cooled to very low temperatures to minimise interference due to the noise generated by the movement of the atoms in the metal (called thermal noise).
A recorder to keep a record of the signal. Most radio telescopes nowadays record directly to some form of computer memory disk as astronomers use sophisticated software to process and analyse the data.

How does a radio telescope work?

[The Lone Ranger]

Radio waves are light, and a radio telescope works on the same basic principle as does a visible-light telescope. Or our eyes, for that matter.

So if we see in "real time," so should a radio telescope.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

No, we don't. You claim that we see Jupiter and its moons as they are right now, science says we see them as they were a couple of minutes ago.

Explain how the eclipses of Jupiter's moons are used to measure the speed of light. Look it up and then explain it in your own words, in detail.

I am not confident enough to explain it in my own words, but that doesn't mean I don't get the gist. If he thought he was seeing a delayed image of Jupiter's moons which he used to calculate the speed of light, this would conflict with Lessans' claim. If he was measuring a Doppler effect, it would not conflict.

Doppler method

It has also been suggested that Rømer was measuring a Doppler effect. The original effect discovered by Christian Doppler 166 years later[19] refers to propagating electromagnetic waves. The generalization referred to here is the change in observed frequency of an oscillator (in this case, Io orbiting around Jupiter) when the observer (in this case, on Earth's surface) is moving: the frequency is higher when the observer is moving towards the oscillator and lower when the observer is moving away from the oscillator. This apparently anachronistic analysis implies that Rømer was measuring the ratio c⁄v, where c is the speed of light and v is the Earth's orbital velocity (strictly, the component of the Earth's orbital velocity parallel to the Earth–Jupiter vector), and indicates that the major inaccuracy of Rømer's calculations was his poor knowledge of the orbit of Jupiter.

Rømer's determination of the speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Radio waves are light, and a radio telescope works on the same basic principle as does a visible-light telescope. Or our eyes, for that matter.

So if we see in "real time," so should a radio telescope.

A telescope can detect light because light travels at a finite rate of speed therefore it would take time to reach the telescope. He was talking strictly about vision and the [belief/claim] that the object does not reflect (travel with) the pattern of light through space/time. The frequency/wavelength is already at the eye (as a mirror image, so to speak) in this account if we are able to see the object. If we can't see the object then it doesn't meet the requirements of brightness and size. Not enough photons, the object will be too dim to be seen. Too small, it won't be seen because there is no resolution of photons on the retina. Traveling light gets detected by telescopes but to conclude that this proves we only need light to see because it's decoded in the brain as normal sight has not been proved conclusively.

[The Lone Ranger]

The Milky Way Galaxy is too small and dim for us to see?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not confident enough to explain it in my own words, but that doesn't mean I don't get the gist. If he thought he was seeing a delayed image of Jupiter's moons which he used to calculate the speed of light, this would conflict with Lessans' claim. If he was measuring a Doppler effect, it would not conflict.

Here, read this link. It's easy to understand.

How we found the speed of light: it’s not infinite! – Starts With A Bang

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The Milky Way Galaxy is too small and dim for us to see?

Really, then why can it be seen?

You can see the Milky Way Galaxy from Earth with the naked eye - Milky Way Galaxy facts

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Here, read this link. It's easy to understand.

How we found the speed of light: it’s not infinite! – Starts With A Bang

Calculating the speed of light depending on where the Earth happens to be in relation to Jupiter is a fine method. If Earth is farther away from Jupiter at a certain time of year, then the light will take longer to get to Earth than when the Earth is closer to Jupiter. I don't see a problem here unless you tell me that what we are seeing is a delayed image of IO itself.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Really, then why can it be seen?

You can see the Milky Way Galaxy from Earth with the naked eye - Milky Way Galaxy facts

You're joking, right? Or do you not understand what a question mark signifies?


For some time, you argued that when we observe things with a telescope, we saw them in delayed time (because the telescope has no brain), but when we observe the same object with the naked eye, we see it in real time. You insisted that this was the case, even when it was pointed out to you that this would lead to absurdities. Like the fact that distant objects would look noticeably different when viewed through a telescope than when viewed with the naked eye.

Upon re-reading the Sacred Text, however, you "discovered" that you had misinterpreted Lessans, and so instantly changed your position to insist that cameras and telescopes see in "real time," just as do the eyes. You even went so far as to deny that you had ever claimed that we see in delayed time when looking through a telescope -- even though you had spent pages doing exactly that.



So, which position are you currently insisting is correct? Do we see in "real time" when using telescopes or not?

Why should we see in "real time" when using a telescope that's using visible light but not one that happens to use ultraviolet or radio wavelengths, which aren't visible to the eye?

Radio telescopes can (and do) take images of the Sun. Do they see it as it is now, or as it was 8.3 minutes ago? Since they work by the same principles as do visible-light telescopes, why the difference?

Surely, you aren't going to insist that the Sun is insufficiently bright and nearby for a radio telescope to "see" it in "real time"?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Calculating the speed of light depending on where the Earth happens to be in relation to Jupiter is a fine method. If Earth is farther away from Jupiter at a certain time of year, then the light will take longer to get to Earth than when the Earth is closer to Jupiter. I don't see a problem here unless you tell me that what we are seeing is a delayed image of IO itself.

You didn't read the explanation on that page, did you?



If we saw in real time there would be no difference between what is observed at point F and G, and between point L and K. Do you realize that the calculation of the speed of light only works because there is a difference between F and G?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think we would get any image of the Sun (not even a blurry image) on the back of a pinhole camera if the pinhole was the size of a crater. It wouldn't work.

So answer the question: how big before you stop getting an image? A crater is too big...is a car sized hole? A shoebox sized? A teaspoon?

I admit I am his daughter and therefore I can't help but be emotional, but that does not mean he was wrong about this or about determinism.

It makes it pretty rich to accuse others of emotional bias though, doesn't it?

That's not how it works. That's not even how radio telescopes work to form a picture of asteroids. They need the real object for the radio waves to bounce off of.

And once the bouncing has happened, we don't need the asteroid any more. We'll still get an image a little later. And yes, that is how it works. To deny that is to deny physics (which you claimed before you agreed with).

I don't buy it because it won't even work with radio waves.

Yes it would. Do you have any more substantial objections than asserting hundreds of years of physical observations are wrong?

If you're measuring the rate of light and how long it takes to reach us, that's a fine measurement but it doesn't mean that you are seeing Jupiter's moons in delayed time.

It certainly proves we're not seeing the moons instantly. If the we were, this wouldn't work. It does work, so it can't be we seem them instantly. Lessans proved wrong, several hundred years past. And ever since.

I'm not dafting at all. I'm just saying that your account that it's the light that has to be in range for us to see is not accurate. You won't be able to see yourself from light if YOU are not there. Your belief that if I remove myself, the light would still bring me the image of me is exactly what Lessans disputed. You can't prove it easily because light travels too fast to determine whether that is true, although scientists keep insisting that it's a fact.

If only we had some sensitive equipment (see But's posts) or a long distance to make the delay more noticeable (see moons of Jupiter, or other astronomical measurements). And they show Lessans was wrong.

I am biased, just like you are. I'm biased in the direction of what I believe is true. You are biased in the direction of what you believe is true.

I'm not biased - I've weighed the evidence. There's nothing in favour of your father's crazy notions, and plenty ruling him out.

You, on the other hand, are very biased. You refuse to believe evidence because it contradicts your father. You haven't looked at any evidence before forming your view, or reassessed it afterwards. You believe your father because he was your father, not by critical thought.

If you showed me some evidence that supported your father, I'd be interested. Do you have any?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think we would get any image of the Sun (not even a blurry image) on the back of a pinhole camera if the pinhole was the size of a crater. It wouldn't work.

Originally Posted by Dragar

So answer the question: how big before you stop getting an image? A crater is too big...is a car sized hole? A shoebox sized? A teaspoon?

You can test it. I don't think the hole could be very large or it would defeat the purpose.

I admit I am his daughter and therefore I can't help but be emotional, but that does not mean he was wrong about this or about determinism.

Originally Posted by Dragar

It makes it pretty rich to accuse others of emotional bias though, doesn't it?

I will say again that just because I was his daughter doesn't automatically make him wrong and me someone who loved her daddy and can't let go.

That's not how it works. That's not even how radio telescopes work to form a picture of asteroids. They need the real object for the radio waves to bounce off of.

Originally Posted by Dragar

And once the bouncing has happened, we don't need the asteroid any more. We'll still get an image a little later. And yes, that is how it works. To deny that is to deny physics (which you claimed before you agreed with).

Oh well, then I'm denying the sacrosanct and that unfortunately puts Lessans in "crackpot" territory. It's really unfortunate.

I don't buy it because it won't even work with radio waves.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Yes it would. Do you have any more substantial objections than asserting hundreds of years of physical observations are wrong?

I thought observation meant nothing to you people. It's all about empirical studies. Yes, they could be wrong because the difference between afferent and efferent is so subtle.

If you're measuring the rate of light and how long it takes to reach us, that's a fine measurement but it doesn't mean that you are seeing Jupiter's moons in delayed time.

Originally Posted by Dragar

It certainly proves we're not seeing the moons instantly. If the we were, this wouldn't work. It does work, so it can't be we seem them instantly. Lessans proved wrong, several hundred years past. And ever since.

Not true. The orbit could be wider which brings the moon out from the eclipse later, which still measures the speed of light.

I'm not dafting at all. I'm just saying that your account that it's the light that has to be in range for us to see is not accurate. You won't be able to see yourself from light if YOU are not there. Your belief that if I remove myself, the light would still bring me the image of me is exactly what Lessans disputed. You can't prove it easily because light travels too fast to determine whether that is true, although scientists keep insisting that it's a fact.

Originally Posted by Dragar

If only we had some sensitive equipment (see But's posts) or a long distance to make the delay more noticeable (see moons of Jupiter, or other astronomical measurements). And they show Lessans was wrong.

I don't think so. I do want to clarify that light has to get to a telescope if it's being emitted by a distant celestial body, so time is involved. He agreed that it takes 8 minutes for the Sun to arrive on Earth. But this observation does not mean that when an object is within visual range that we aren't seeing this object in real time because it's not what light does as much as it is what the eyes and brain do. I wonder if this thread has gotten as boring for you as it has gotten for me.

I am biased, just like you are. I'm biased in the direction of what I believe is true. You are biased in the direction of what you believe is true.

Originally Posted by Dragar

I'm not biased - I've weighed the evidence. There's nothing in favour of your father's crazy notions, and plenty ruling him out.

You, on the other hand, are very biased. You refuse to believe evidence because it contradicts your father. You haven't looked at any evidence before forming your view, or reassessed it afterwards. You believe your father because he was your father, not by critical thought.

You can't be serious. I think you need to read the book; at least you'll have something concrete to refute. Right now, you're just repeating what science has deemed is absolute 100% fact (and therefore cannot be challenged), which I don't believe it is.

Originally Posted by Dragar

If you showed me some evidence that supported your father, I'd be interested. Do you have any?

His demonstration should be enough to cause curiosity and the desire to investigate further. I don't believe you remember a thing about what he wrote, nor do you care.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Really, then why can it be seen?

You can see the Milky Way Galaxy from Earth with the naked eye - Milky Way Galaxy facts

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're joking, right? Or do you not understand what a question mark signifies?


For some time, you argued that when we observe things with a telescope, we saw them in delayed time (because the telescope has no brain), but when we observe the same object with the naked eye, we see it in real time. You insisted that this was the case, even when it was pointed out to you that this would lead to absurdities. Like the fact that distant objects would look noticeably different when viewed through a telescope than when viewed with the naked eye.

Upon re-reading the Sacred Text, however, you "discovered" that you had misinterpreted Lessans, and so instantly changed your position to insist that cameras and telescopes see in "real time," just as do the eyes. You even went so far as to deny that you had ever claimed that we see in delayed time when looking through a telescope -- even though you had spent pages doing exactly that.

Let me just say that I never analyzed the observations that you are asking me to respond to. I'm not an astronomer, but that does not mean that Lessans' observations regarding the eyes are wrong. If the eyes work the way he described, then scientists have to reconsider their position because it would change delayed vision to real time vision. I have made errors in my effort to make this all fit, but that still doesn't mean he was wrong. It just means I haven't done a great job at answering all the questions being thrown at me.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, which position are you currently insisting is correct? Do we see in "real time" when using telescopes or not?

No, we don't see in real time. Telescopes pick up light or radio waves as they travel through space/time.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Why should we see in "real time" when using a telescope that's using visible light but not one that happens to use ultraviolet or radio wavelengths, which aren't visible to the eye?

The light that is traveling is delayed, obviously. We wouldn't see daylight if the Sun was just turned on instantly. We would have to wait 8 minutes.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Radio telescopes can (and do) take images of the Sun. Do they see it as it is now, or as it was 8.3 minutes ago? Since they work by the same principles as do visible-light telescopes, why the difference?

Radio waves travel, and that's what radio telescopes receive. There is no difference except for the fact that although visible-light telescopes collect light, this is not the same thing as what we see. One is in delayed time; the other is not. You say the information is in the light, which it is, although Lessans disagreed that we are getting the decoded image from light alone. If the eyes are efferent, the object is what is seen, not an image of the object.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Surely, you aren't going to insist that the Sun is insufficiently bright and nearby for a radio telescope to "see" it in "real time"?

It doesn't see the visible spectrum, so the question doesn't apply. Both a radio or a visible-light telescope would detect radio waves or light waves respectively in delayed time, but once again, this has nothing to do with the direction that the eyes see, which changes the timing of what we see.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can test it. I don't think the hole could be very large or it would defeat the purpose.

Again, avoiding the question. Given it gets blurrier and blurrier, at what level of blur do you consider it no longer an 'image'?

And what happens when it suddenly stops being instant if I'm using the pinhole camera to look at something a long way away - maybe something that has changed colour by now? Does the blurry image suddenly change colour when the hole gets to just the right size that it's no longer an image, and it flips from being instant image to a delayed pattern of light?

Magic magic magic...

I will say again that just because I was his daughter doesn't automatically make him wrong and me someone who loved her daddy and can't let go.

And I didn't say that. I said it's pretty rich to accuse that of other people, given the facts.

I thought observation meant nothing to you people. It's all about empirical studies. Yes, they could be wrong because the difference between afferent and efferent is so subtle.

It's not subtle at all. The moons of Jupiter are a long way away! It's a big difference at those distances.

And modern equipment is very good. It's easy to measure time delays over even short distances.

Lessans was wrong.

Not true. The orbit could be wider which brings the moon out from the eclipse later, which still measures the speed of light.

'The orbit could be wider'? How does that explain anything? I'm not sure you even understand the experiment. Go read But's link.

And the orbit can't be wider. We can see the moons! How do you think we know how wide the orbit is? We can look and see. With our delayed vision, of course.

I don't think so. I do want to clarify that light has to get to a telescope if it's being emitted by a distant celestial body, so time is involved. He agreed that it takes 8 minutes for the Sun to arrive on Earth. But this observation does not mean that when an object is within visual range that we aren't seeing this object in real time because it's not what light does as much as it is what the eyes and brain do. I wonder if this thread has gotten as boring for you as it has gotten for me.

And asserting this leads you down the crazy road of denying physics. Because like it or not, physical images can be made from light. So all of sudden you have to start changing the properties of light to match instant vision. And now you have to start saying some things are images, which are instant, and some light isn't an image, which is delayed. And the you get issues like, when does the light produce a delayed image versus an instant one, because these image/not-image distinctions are actually pretty arbitrary. And what a mess of contradictions and lies you end up in!

You've no reason to think any of this is true, except your dad said it and you want to believe it. Nobody else has any faith in your dad, so you're never going to get anyone else to believe it. Everyone else thinks you're crazy. It's also clear you lie and act dishonestly to try and persuade people - to 'make us happy' - without any care as to the truth. And that's despicable.

His demonstration should be enough to cause curiosity and the desire to investigate further. I don't believe you remember a thing about what he wrote, nor do you care.

He made no demonstrations. He made assertions. They are wrong.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, we don't see in real time. Telescopes pick up light or radio waves as they travel through space/time.

So if we 'see' the position of the sun in real time in the optical spectrum, but don't 'see' in real time with radio waves, why does the position of the sun we see match the position of the sun according to radio waves? It should differ by 8 minutes worth of movement in the sky, as one is delayed and one is not.

But it doesn't. Therefore Lessans is wrong.

[LadyShea]

I don't think so. I do want to clarify that light has to get to a telescope if it's being emitted by a distant celestial body, so time is involved. He agreed that it takes 8 minutes for the Sun to arrive on Earth. But this observation does not mean that when an object is within visual range that we aren't seeing this object in real time because it's not what light does as much as it is what the eyes and brain do. I wonder if this thread has gotten as boring for you as it has gotten for me.

He specifically said we see distant stars in no time at all, without delay. So that means light does not have to travel to the telescope, according to Lessans

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, we don't see in real time. Telescopes pick up light or radio waves as they travel through space/time.

Really? Seriously? You've changed your position on this yet again?


You do realize, don't you, that it's trivially -- indeed, ridiculously -- easy to test the claim that we see in "real time" with our eyes, but not when using a telescope? Guess what happens every time the claim is tested?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He specifically said we see distant stars in no time at all, without delay. So that means light does not have to travel to the telescope, according to Lessans

In his book Lessans claimed that the brain looks out through the eyes and is in direct contact with the object. The problem becomes "how does the brain/eye come into direct contact with the object". There is nothing in the book about photons traveling where vision is concerned, photons only illuminate the object so that we can see the object. Lessans implied that there was a cloud of photons that hovered about the object for us to see, but there was never any explanation of how this happened, nor was there an explanation of how the brain/eye could be in direct contact over the distances that existed. Distance was somehow ignored or discounted as not important, and Lessans only claimed that this happened, but never explained how it could happen. Lessans, like Peacegirl, expected others to prove him right, but if the tests and experiments give the opposite results, there is something wrong with the test or experiment.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do want to clarify that light has to get to a telescope if it's being emitted by a distant celestial body, so time is involved. He agreed that it takes 8 minutes for the Sun to arrive on Earth. But this observation does not mean that when an object is within visual range that we aren't seeing this object in real time because it's not what light does as much as it is what the eyes and brain do.

Just what does Lessans claim that the Brain/Eyes do that allow them to see in real time, and how do they do it?

This thread would not be nearly so boring if you would just answer the questions directly rather than evade them, and it would have been over a long time ago.

[LadyShea]

All of your flip flopping and magical mirror images and boxes cannot make Lessans ideas regarding "real time" seeing conform with reality, peacegirl. And instant vision isn't even necessary to explain psychological conditioning!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All of your flip flopping and magical mirror images and boxes cannot make Lessans ideas regarding "real time" seeing conform with reality, peacegirl. And instant vision isn't even necessary to explain psychological conditioning!

It's not psychological conditioning per se; it's how words are projected onto substance, and how the brain is conditioned to think that what it sees is reality. If what Lessans has observed is true, then we have to rethink how this concept changes the direction in which we see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just what does Lessans claim that the Brain/Eyes do that allow them to see in real time, and how do they do it?

This thread would not be nearly so boring if you would just answer the questions directly rather than evade them, and it would have been over a long time ago.

If you had carefully read that chapter, you would have gotten your answers. But you didn't read anything, and what you did read you didn't read carefully enough because you are treating the book like crap.