A revolution in thought

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think I understand. We know there is a delay, but it still doesn't prove what it is we're seeing, the image or the actual Io. Like I said, I'm sorry to have put you through this.

Roemer measured the speed of light by timing eclipses of Jupiter's moon Io. In this figure, S is the Sun, E1 is the Earth when closest to Jupiter (J1) and E2 is the Earth about six months later, on the opposite side of the Sun from Jupiter (J2). When the Earth is at E2, the light from the Jupiter system has to travel an extra distance represented by the diameter of the Earth's orbit. This causes a delay in the timing of the eclipses. Roemer measured the delay and, knowing approximately the diameter of the Earth's orbit, made the first good estimate of the speed of light.

Ole Roemer and the Speed of Light

This is really simple. You say if there is light at the object, we see it. During the eclipse the moon is in Jupiter's shadow. The text you quoted says it right there: the timing of the eclipses changes. This would not be the case if we saw the moon in real time. If we saw the moon in real time, the eclipse would always look the same.

What do you mean, "it doesn't prove what it is we're seeing"? I think you're trying to hand-wave your way out of this.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Roemer measured the speed of light by timing eclipses of Jupiter's moon Io. In this figure, S is the Sun, E1 is the Earth when closest to Jupiter (J1) and E2 is the Earth about six months later, on the opposite side of the Sun from Jupiter (J2). When the Earth is at E2, the light from the Jupiter system has to travel an extra distance represented by the diameter of the Earth's orbit. This causes a delay in the timing of the eclipses. Roemer measured the delay and, knowing approximately the diameter of the Earth's orbit, made the first good estimate of the speed of light.

Ole Roemer and the Speed of Light

The exercise works because we see a delayed image, we do not see objects instantly, if we saw objects instantly the experiment wouldn't work. Efferent vision is wrong, Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

What do you mean, "it doesn't prove what it is we're seeing"? I think you're trying to hand-wave your way out of this.

Peacegirl is constantly trying to hand-wave away any science that disproves Lessans silly ideas, but she complains bitterly when others try to hand-wave away her fathers claims, and even more-so when others actually provide proof.

She refuses to accept any criticism with "You don't understand", "You didn't read the book", "You can't criticize what you don't know anything about", and her mantra continues.

[thedoc]

Wow, it took her about 4 years to actually address the Moons of Jupiter.

[GdB]

Still waiting on your reactions on this posting, peacegirl.

There are a huge number of unanswered questions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

This is really simple. You say if there is light at the object, we see it. During the eclipse the moon is in Jupiter's shadow. The text you quoted says it right there: the timing of the eclipses changes. This would not be the case if we saw the moon in real time. If we saw the moon in real time, the eclipse would always look the same.

What do you mean, "it doesn't prove what it is we're seeing"? I think you're trying to hand-wave your way out of this.

He observed a delay which isn't being disputed, but the question is: Was his inferences correct that the reason for this delay was because of the light taking longer to reach us? It all sounds so perfectly logical that there could be no other conclusion to draw. To even question his conclusion would be tantamount to blasphemy. But what if IO's orbit was elliptical, and that's why the moon was delayed? Circumstantial evidence can often be wrong especially when there is confirmation bias. No one ever questioned his conclusions because it was an accepted fact that we see in delayed time.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But what if IO's orbit was elliptical, and that's why the moon was delayed?

Io's orbit is elliptical. (And even if it were, as I suspect you might be thinking, a circular orbit, circles are just special cases of ellipses.) But that's immaterial; the timing of the eclipse shouldn't change depending on how far away Jupiter is from us, elliptical orbit or otherwise. I can only conclude you still don't understand how this works, do you? Go read the description again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

And what with 3 holes close to each other, with 3 images overlapping? 10? 100? 10,000?

Again we have the 'gliding scale' question. You have no mechanism, and therefore no criterion for when efferent vision 'sets in'.

It would all depend on the size of the hole and if it was able to act like a lens. It would also depend on how close the hole was to the film or backdrop. So if the Sun was just turned on, there may be images of the Sun wherever there are pinholes or larger holes that met these conditions. If the hole did not meet the conditions there would be no image at all (blurred or not) and therefore it would take 8 minutes for light to arrive.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did explain it and I posted a large portion of the text after you left. It really isn't fair to Lessans to take parts out of the book without reading it in sequence, but I did it anyway just to bring to the table why he believed what he did.

Originally Posted by GdB

Nowhere is the mechanism explained. There must lie physics at the basis of an explanation. Point me to the physics of Lessans' description of efferent vision. Saying that it must be bright enough and in the field of vision is no explanation.

Why not? It all has to do with the way in which the brain and eyes work, which are the opposite of how they are believed to work. That IS the mechanism. Did you read my post where he explained how he came to this conclusion, or were you not here?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wrote this because I am using your reasoning, which makes it appear that this is the only answer. Why do you think it's so difficult to conceive of the possibility that we see in real time?

Originally Posted by GdB

It is not difficult. It is just plain wrong. It is against the laws of physics.

Physics doesn't change but the idea of afferent vision does. If he was right in that we do not interpret the light to form images in the brain, the function of light changes, not the properties.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it's not an easy thing to figure out coming from the afferent perspective, or the belief that light travels with the pattern through space/time and strikes the eye or camera. That seems to be the ONLY logical conclusion. But is it????

Originally Posted by GdB

You are right, it is not the only logical conclusion. But it is the only physical conclusion. Given the laws of nature we know it takes time for the light of objects to get here, the light that can be used to create an image. (I always read this funny notion of you of a pattern or image that is transferred by light. There is no image transferred by light. A photon that is used as part of a picture differs in nothing from a photon that falls just on a piece of white paper. Only when we distribute the photons according to the direction the fall onto a screen, by means of a lens or pinhole, that we create an image. There is no image transferred by light.)

That's what I meant. It's just a shorthand way of saying the same thing. It makes a big difference if there is a lens or a pinhole in how the photons are distributed. If my eyes didn't have a lens, do you think I would be able to see?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Correct. I was thinking only of the ratio between a pinhole and the resultant projection, but this phenomenon actually supports his claim; it does not detract from it.

Originally Posted by GdB

How does that support your claim? In theory we could have a hole as big as the moon, and a screen billions of miles away. It would create a perfect pinhole camera. Would we also have instantaneous vision? Even if it takes hours for the light to get from the moon-size pinhole to the screen?

Again, you're thinking in terms of travel time (as if to say the farther away the hole is from the screen the longer it would take to arrive) when a projection is just a mirror image (a closed system between the lens or hole and the screen) of the object being viewed therefore theoretically the photons would be at the screen within a nanosecond. As I explained earlier, it doesn't matter how far something is from the lens, or the lens from the screen. What matters is the requirements that are necessary for sight. If these are met, distance and time are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, light travels, that is true, but the question remains: does it do what scientists think it does? Is it alone responsible for sight? If Lessans is right, the object is absolutely necessary to get a picture. No object = no image.

Originally Posted by GdB

This is no answer on my question at all. About what stuff are you talking that has a wavelength and and a frequency?

The nonabsorbed photons.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have given an explanation which came indirectly, not from the study of light. He continued to reason based on his observation as to how the brain works and concluded that we must be seeing in real time or the brain would not be able to do what it does in relation to words. If he was wrong regarding how the brain and eyes work, or he was wrong regarding the conclusion that he came to as a result, then he would be wrong regarding his claim that we see in real time. But if he is right on both counts, then his findings cannot be simply ignored if people are searching for the truth.

Originally Posted by GdB

Trust me.

I don't trust you.

Originally Posted by GdB

He is wrong.

I don't believe so.

Originally Posted by GdB

Lessans' knew next to nothing about the brain. And what has this to do with lenses and pinholes? There is no brain involved in the images produced by photo cameras and pinhole cameras.

You're right. I'm just extending the reasoning. If light is a bridge to the outside world, cameras would be using light in the same way. The only difference is that the photons would be on a screen or film in real time, whereas if we were looking at the object directly the photons would be on the retina allowing us to see the object in real time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's about the wavelength/frequency already being at the eye because it provides an instant mirror image, but this has nothing to do with distance or time.

Originally Posted by GdB

Again, if you don't say the wavelength/frequency of what, your sentence is empirically empty.

It would have the wavelength/frequency of the object.

Originally Posted by GdB

And your 'because' is no 'because': if it should have a physical meaningful connection then it is in the opposite direction. It provides an instant mirror image, because the wavelength/frequency is already at the eye. That has the form of a physical explanation. But as such it is absolute meaningless.

Not really. If you think backwards (the account of vision is the complete opposite of what is believed), then the idea that the pattern is already at the eye would make more sense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He does not deny that light travels which takes 8 minutes to arrive. Do you see the difference between the two?

Originally Posted by GdB

Yes, I do. I see nonsense at one side, and a true physical proposition at the other.

That's only because you are judging this alternate view in terms of the present theory. It doesn't work that way.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seeing the object in real time rather than decoding the image from light works in the hypothetical situation Lessans gave because of the reasons given: that is, there has to be enough light coming from the object to be bright enough to be seen (enough photons to be resolved or the object will be too dim), and that the object is large enough to be seen (the ACTUAL object is within our field of view). If either of these are missing, we won't see anything. This is in keeping with optics; the only difference being that light has ONLY to be at the object because it's not light alone that is bringing anything to us; we are using light (IOW, light becomes a condition of sight, not a cause) to see the actual object. Therefore, in this hypothetical example we would see the Sun before we would see a person right next to us, which would take 8 minutes.

Originally Posted by GdB

Again, you explain nothing, why do you think you get through with just repeating your ideas instead of explaining the physical basis of it. I asked for the explanation, not for the conditions under which efferent vision exists. The conditions should follow physically from the way the mechanism works.

I told you that the mechanism that changes the function of light (not the properties of light) is due to how the brain works. I don't know how else to explain it. If we see the world directly, using light as a conduit, then physically we see things as they are, not as they were.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure how lenses getting better and better kill this idea.

Originally Posted by GdB

Because somewhere between a flat piece of glass and polishing it to a perfect lens, the instantaneous occurring of the image should happen. Is our subjective impression 'yeah, that seems already to be an image' a physical criterion?

If the Sun was just turned on, the physical criterion would be that an image can be made out; not a subjective impression. If there is no mirror image, then the conditions would be such that no image could be provided. If he was right, this pattern of light is not reflected therefore 8 minutes later light would get here but it would not provide anything other than causing our pupils to dilate since that is not how we see, according to this account.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

From what I understand, it would only make the image that much clearer. You have to remember the whatever we see coming from the perspective that light travels to bring the image (afferent vision) versus seeing the image in real time, are exactly the same.

Originally Posted by GdB

But there is no image at all when the glass is still perfectly plane. And why this needless doubling of reality?

Where is the doubling of reality?

Originally Posted by GdB

If light produces exactly the image that we also see in efferent vision?

Light does produce the image on our retina, but it does not get decoded in the brain. We need the connection between light and the external world for us to see, but this is a far cry from light causing sight after it travels through space/time to our eye.

Originally Posted by GdB

How can Lessans' observations about the brain, lead to the conclusion of instantaneous vision with lenses and pinholes, and where in our daily life distances are so short that this difference between a nanosecond and instantaneous cannot be observed by our eyes?

Only by inferring what is going on based on his observation regarding the brain and eyes. As I keep repeating, we cannot get the answer through our every day distances. That's why he gave the hypothetical example to try to get people to see the difference between the present [theory] of delayed sight and the competing [theory] of real time sight.

Originally Posted by GdB

If you cannot explain how efferent vision does not contradict relativity, your idea is dead.

How? I'm not sure how relativity is contradicted. There may be a conflict with special relativity and the bending of space/time due to gravity.

relativity: The key concept to remember is the equivalence principle, which states that gravity pulling in one direction is equivalent to acceleration in another. This is why an accelerating elevator provides a feeling of increased gravity while rising and decreased gravity while descending. If gravity is equivalent to acceleration, then it means gravity (like motion) affects measurements of time and space.

Originally Posted by GdB

Gravity has nothing to do with it. Are you really so stupid

Um, I will not continue the conversation if you name call. Got that?

Originally Posted by GdB

: different people have said it repeatedly: it is in conflict with special relativity that says that no energy or information can travel faster than light. And special relativity is proven to the bone. It is absolutely fundamental to how our world is.

There is nothing traveling, so this is not an apples to apples comparison. Secondly, I don't believe that time is a fourth dimension, or that space and time bend. That's why I say you have to be free of any pre-existing ideas in order to test his claim without prejudice, even if Einstein said it. There should be no sacred cows in science.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let me repeat: The study of light is not how he came to his conclusions. You can't just go by the established theory (by using the same observations that formed the theory in the first place) when this is what is being challenged. You have to go by Lessans' finding as a starting point.

Originally Posted by GdB

But it is a physical fact that the eyes work with light. Do you deny that? And light behaves according to certain laws of nature.

Yes. When did I ever say otherwise? But I also said that his view of how the eyes and brain work in relation to light does not violate the laws of nature.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've said all along that the mechanism that allows us to see in real time has to do with the direction we see. If Lessans is right the function of light changes in that it becomes a bridge to the external world, but the properties of light don't change so it does not violate the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by GdB

No, but Lessans postulates some second mechanism that allows instantaneous vision. And for some crazy reason you say that this works the same way with a pinhole camera, for which there already is a very precise simple explanation based on traveling light.

But it's still a closed system if the actual object (not just the light) is within the range of the pinhole. It is assumed that the object doesn't need to be present to get an image, which would make it an open system based on distance and time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Io's orbit is elliptical. (And even if it were, as I suspect you might be thinking, a circular orbit, circles are just special cases of ellipses.) But that's immaterial; the timing of the eclipse shouldn't change depending on how far away Jupiter is from us

Why not? A circular orbit would show up differently than an elliptical orbit in terms of what we see.

, elliptical orbit or otherwise. I can only conclude you still don't understand how this works, do you? Go read the description again.

I am trying to understand.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why not? A circular orbit would show up differently than an elliptical orbit in terms of what we see.

But 'what we see' is a measured orbital period. Those periods are independent of eccentricity (see Kepler's Third Law). Even if Kepler's Law is wrong (!) then the orbital period shouldn't change.

Even if it were dependent on eccentricity, it wouldn't be expected to change with distance from us.

And even it did change with distance from us, it would be one hell of a conspiracy that it changed precisely the right amount to make us think that Kepler's Laws are correct and to measure the correct delay in the eclipse to get a correct measurement of the speed of light.

So unless you're suggesting a cosmic conspiracy, you need another explanation.

[The Lone Ranger]

That's what I find so astonishing about peacegirl's claims.


If she's correct, then the entire Universe is somehow conspiring to convince us that we see in delayed time. After all, if Jupiter's moons were speeding up and slowing down in their orbits (in defiance of physical laws) by just the right amount to convince an observer on Earth that there's a delay due to the speed of light, then a hypothetical observer on Mars (for example) wouldn't be fooled, because the timing would be wrong.

According to peacegirl, supernovae somehow carefully time their neutrino releases so as to fool Earthly observers into thinking that we see in delayed time. Again, the timing would be all wrong for a hypothetical observer elsewhere in the galaxy. And so on.


I've asked before, but it bears repeating: What is so special about the Earth that the entire Universe is carefully arranged so as to convince us (and only us) that we see in delayed time?

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

to be cont shortly...

Yeeeesss....?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's what I find so astonishing about peacegirl's claims.


If she's correct, then the entire Universe is somehow conspiring to convince us that we see in delayed time. After all, if Jupiter's moons were speeding up and slowing down in their orbits (in defiance of physical laws) by just the right amount to convince an observer on Earth that there's a delay due to the speed of light, then a hypothetical observer on Mars (for example) wouldn't be fooled, because the timing would be wrong.

I never said anything about Jupiter's moons speeding up and slowing down in defiance of physical laws. I said that the orbit may be a particular shape that accounts for the delay.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

According to peacegirl, supernovae somehow carefully time their neutrino releases so as to fool Earthly observers into thinking that we see in delayed time. Again, the timing would be all wrong for a hypothetical observer elsewhere in the galaxy. And so on.

But what if neutrinos don't exist (don't think I'm crazy for saying this)?

Neutrinos May Not Exist

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I asked this before, but it bears repeating: What is so special about the Earth that the entire Universe is carefully arranged so as to convince us (and only us) that we see in delayed time?

There is nothing so special about the Earth that the entire Universe is carefully arranged so as to convince us (and only us) that we see in delayed time. It's just that all of the theories have been based on this premise, which could very easily give the appearance that everything falls into place. What we observe is the same in both accounts, which is why it is difficult to know whether what we're seeing is in delayed or real time from these observations alone. That's where his indirect observations may play an important role in our quest for truth.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said anything about Jupiter's moons speeding up and slowing down in defiance of physical laws. I said that the orbit may be a particular shape that accounts for the delay.

Actually, you're lying again. It has been pointed out to you before that the shape of the moons' orbits does not matter -- only the period. And it was pointed out that the only way to save your beliefs was to assume that the moons of Jupiter (and Saturn, and Mars, and Uranus, etc.) speed up and slow down in their orbits in a manner that's precisely what's necessary to generate the illusion that we see in delayed time.

It was also pointed out that this illusion wouldn't work for an observer on Mars, for example, since the timing would be wrong.


Your response was to claim that perhaps that's precisely what happens. For some unexplained reason.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said anything about Jupiter's moons speeding up and slowing down in defiance of physical laws. I said that the orbit may be a particular shape that accounts for the delay.

No, that doesn't work.

But what if neutrinos don't exist (don't think I'm crazy for saying this)?

Neutrinos May Not Exist

That's nonsense. And your source is a crackpot, as usual.

There is nothing so special about the Earth that the entire Universe is carefully arranged so as to convince us (and only us) that we see in delayed time. It's just that all of the theories have been based on this premise, which could very easily give the appearance that everything falls into place. What we observe is the same in both accounts,

No it isn't, and you've been given lots of examples.

which is why it is difficult to know whether what we're seeing is in delayed or real time from these observations alone. That's where his indirect observations may play an important role in our quest for truth.

Nonsense. His ramblings about words or whatever have absolutely nothing to do with light, sight or vision, and are wrong anyway.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are another one that has no understanding of why these principles work, not even a clue. You couldn't explain the two-sided equation if I paid you, but you sure can spout off a lot of nonsense comparing a snake oil salesman in the world we're living to someone practicing medicine in the new world. A snake oil salesman does not feel any contrition for misleading people since there is always a way to justify his actions. A doctor in the new world would never be able to take advantage of people for his own remuneration because there will be no way to justify his actions.

I am not going to try and factor in the hypothetical changes in human behavior that will hypothetically occur in Lessans' hypothetical new world. I am not going to factor in those changes because they are purely hypothetical and not supported by any evidence. You want everyone to treat Lessans' hypotheticals as if they were facts, even though they aren't facts. Reasonable people will not do that. This is one of the principle reasons why you and Lessans' have had no success in convincing reasonable people to take him seriously.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Actually, you're lying again. It has been pointed out to you before that the shape of the moons' orbits does not matter -- only the period. And it was pointed out that the only way to save your beliefs was to assume that the moons of Jupiter (and Saturn, and Mars, and Uranus, etc.) speed up and slow down in their orbits in a manner that's precisely what's necessary to generate the illusion that we see in delayed time.

I don't get that. Why would the shape of the orbit (which would show a time difference) not matter? I agree that speeding up and slowing down makes no sense.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It was also pointed out that this illusion wouldn't work for an observer on Mars, for example, since the timing would be wrong.

I don't get that either, at least not in regard to the efferent account. We would see the delay from Mars the same way we would see the delay from Earth.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Your response was to claim that perhaps that's precisely what happens. For some unexplained reason.

No, I did not claim that's precisely what happens. I said it's another way of looking at it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I am not going to try and factor in the hypothetical changes in human behavior that will hypothetically occur in Lessans' hypothetical new world. I am not going to factor in those changes because they are purely hypothetical and not supported by any evidence. You want everyone to treat Lessans' hypotheticals as if they were facts, even though they aren't facts. Reasonable people will not do that. This is one of the principle reasons why you and Lessans' have had no success in convincing reasonable people to take him seriously.

No that's not why. I have only reached a handful of people and the audiences have been basically the same. Obviously this is hypothetical because the new world isn't here yet and it won't ever become a reality if people don't listen to his proof of determinism and the amazing storehouse of knowledge that lies behind this hermetically sealed door. A person can first put a mathematical formula down on paper and apply it later on. That does not mean the formula is wrong or invalid. I do not want anyone to believe this discovery without understanding his demonstration for themselves, and I certainly welcome anyone who can put his claims to a rigorous test.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why not? A circular orbit would show up differently than an elliptical orbit in terms of what we see.

I am trying to understand.

Whether the orbit is elliptical or circular, astronomers know what the orbit actually is, there is no question about it and they are able to know exactly when the Moon will be in exactly what position, about this there is no question. What is at issue is the difference in time when the Moon actually disappears behind Jupiter and reappears, and the time when astronomers observe these events. There is an observed difference in the timing of those events and the difference in the delay in observing the events, due to the position of the planets in their orbits, are the information that astronomers have used to calculate the speed of light. The orbits of the planets and the moons have been measured and calculated to a very high degree of precision.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to understand.

I would suggest that "trying to understand" is a euphemism for trying to make it fit into Lessans ideas about reality. Based on past experience you are not willing to accept reality as it is, but insist that your fathers claims must be true at all cost to the truth.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have only reached a handful of people and the audience I have reached is out of one mold.

and I certainly welcome anyone who can put his claims to a rigorous test.

Yes, the people you have presented these ideas to have universally rejected them, it makes you wonder why you continue? Except that this rejection feeds your martyr complex and allows you to believe that you are fighting the good fight, upholding your fathers claims, except that your fathers claims were nonsense and you are fighting a lost fight.

You do not welcome rigorous tests of your fathers claims, such tests have been presented many times, and you constantly reject them without the slightest bit of understanding. Your fathers claims have been tested and found wanting, it's time to let them go, let your father rest in peace. Stop holding him up to ridicule.

[GdB]

So many non-answers and contradictions...

I'll try to distillate them from your posting.

1. You still have no idea about what we mean with the difference between the criteria for efferent vision and the mechanism. You are asked for the mechanism, but you always only answer with the criteria. Do you even understand the difference between these two? If you know, then please give the mechanism. Explain how the information gets at the screen of a pinhole camera instantaneously, when the criteria (bright enough, in the field of vision) are fulfilled?
   
   
2. You avoid to answer the question what makes an image, a blurred image, and just light. This is a gradual difference, and you can give no account at all when there is instantaneous vision or just light falling, with a delay, on a screen. This one really is a non-answer:
   
   

   Originally Posted by peacegirl

   It all has to do with the way in which the brain and eyes work, which are the opposite of how they are believed to work. That IS the mechanism.

3. Lessans based his ideas on his observation about how children acquire a consistent impression of the world. You call this:
   
   

   Originally Posted by peacegirl

   the mechanism that changes the function of light (not the properties of light) is due to how the brain works.

   In photo cameras and pinhole cameras no brain is involved, so it cannot be 'due to how the brain works'. Then how can you conclude images produced by them are also instantaneous?
   
   
4. You say that the stuff that has a wavelength/frequency are photons. But photons are light, and light travels with 300,000 km/s. So they cannot be instantaneous at the eye.
   
   
5. You say that light is needed to see ('If we see the world directly, using light as a conduit'), but light travels with 300,000 km/s. So you are contradicting established, proven physics. Also you say nothing travels from the object to the eye. But somehow information is instantaneous at the eye. That contradicts special relativity, which is an established, proven and much used theory.
   
   So this remark is as empty as it can be:
   

   Originally Posted by peacegirl

   his view of how the eyes and brain work in relation to light does not violate the laws of nature.

   Just saying that efferent vision does not violate the laws of nature doesn't mean that they don't! You fail to see the physical facts.

Your answers are empty, contradicting established physics, and contradicting each other.

[GdB]

Here I have another simple experiment for you.

You are standing in a dark room with a white wall: the wall on the other side has a hole with a diameter of 1 cm. The distance to the wall is about 10 meters. If you peep through the hole, you see a simple landscape: a bright blue sky, green fields, some dark-grey mountains on the left and a bright sun on the right.

We will now repeat the 'sun-turning-on-at-noon-experiment' a few times.

1. You peep through the hole. Suddenly, you see the sun appearing, 8 minutes later you see the landscape. Right?
   
   
2. Now, you move a little backwards, so you cannot see the complete landscape anymore: you only see the sun, a part of the blue sky, and a tiny part of the green fields. To see this, you must not stand in the middle behind the hole, but a little bit down and to the left. You must so to speak 'peep up and to the right' a little, so you still have the sun in view. What do you see when the sun is turned on? (my guess is the same as above: first the sun, and 8 minutes later, the blue sky and the green fields. Right?)
   
   
3. Now you move to the wall, and peep through the hole. Now you must choose: from your distance, the hole has become pretty small, so you can only look at a small piece of the sun or a small piece of the sky or a small piece of the fields, but not all three together. For the sun you have to bend deep through you knees, and go to the left of the room; moving to the middle of the room, but still bent, you see the blue sky; standing up, you see the green fields. We repeat the sun-at-noon experiment 3 times, for every position of yours. How long does it take before you see: the sun; the sky; the fields?
   
   
4. Now you turn around, and look at the white wall. At the place where you had to bend to see the sun, you see an image of the sun. The lower half of the wall is blue, the higher half is green. And on the right side of the screen you see the mountains. In short, you see a 180 degrees turned around image of the outside world. According to you, this image appears instantaneously when the sun is turned on. However, looking directly through the hole, you only see the sun instantaneously, and the rest of the landscape only after 8 minutes. How do you explain this difference?
   

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are another one that has no understanding of why these principles work, not even a clue. You couldn't explain the two-sided equation if I paid you, but you sure can spout off a lot of nonsense comparing a snake oil salesman in the world we're living to someone practicing medicine in the new world. A snake oil salesman does not feel any contrition for misleading people since there is always a way to justify his actions. A doctor in the new world would never be able to take advantage of people for his own remuneration because there will be no way to justify his actions.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I am not going to try and factor in the hypothetical changes in human behavior that will hypothetically occur in Lessans' hypothetical new world.

Why not? Isn't all religion based on predictions (please don't skip over this question) and how the world would be different if we only knew how to achieve it? I really don't get the difference Angakuk, please explain.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I am not going to factor in those changes because they are purely hypothetical and not supported by any evidence. You want everyone to treat Lessans' hypotheticals as if they were facts, even though they aren't facts. Reasonable people will not do that. This is one of the principle reasons why you and Lessans' have had no success in convincing reasonable people to take him seriously.

Jesus himself came back in 3 days when people had no idea if he was the Son of God, so how do you square this with the outright rejection of Lessans claims? Angakuk, I really like you. I know your heart is in the right place. I am not trying to dismiss your faith. I am very faithful as well, but my faith is based on evidence that may conflict with yours. It doesn't matter. The bottom line is that truth wins even if religion dies (and I mean all religions that are no longer needed) not just Christianity. Religion came into existence to help humanity, but it may now be doing more harm than good. After all, I'm Jewish and I respect Christiantiy. Whether Jessus was the son of God is not as important as what Jesus taught us. Please please don't misunderstand me Angakuk. I love this forum for allowing me to speak my truth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

This is really simple. You say if there is light at the object, we see it. During the eclipse the moon is in Jupiter's shadow. The text you quoted says it right there: the timing of the eclipses changes. This would not be the case if we saw the moon in real time. If we saw the moon in real time, the eclipse would always look the same.

What do you mean, "it doesn't prove what it is we're seeing"? I think you're trying to hand-wave your way out of this.

I have no desire to handwave away anything; I just need more confirmation. How many times has circumstantial evidence been used to prove a case when further analysis proved the assertion wrong. I'm really not here to defend Lessans if he was wrong, please understand this. I just want more tests done. Isn't that a fair request?