A revolution in thought

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A laser is a beam of light. The Sun is a huge ball of fire. That's like comparing the size of the earth to a tennis ball.

If you look into the light of a laser, you see the bright output coupler of the laser, i.e. an image of it. Remember: we do not see images because they are transported by light, but because we notice from what directions the light comes.
So when we look to the sun and to the laser we see two images: one of the sun, and one of the output coupler of the laser.

Assuming the laser is bright enough to get its light into your eyes: in what order do you see the sun and the output coupler?

If different, why? What has size to do with it? (You can imagine you can use a telescope, so you see the output coupler big enough).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

If you look into the light of a laser, you see the bright output coupler of the laser, i.e. an image of it. Remember: we do not see images because they are transported by light, but because we notice from what directions the light comes.
So when we look to the sun and to the laser we see two images: one of the sun, and one of the output coupler of the laser.

Assuming the laser is bright enough to get its light into your eyes: in what order do you see the sun and the output coupler?

If different, why? What has size to do with it? (You can imagine you can use a telescope, so you see the output coupler big enough).

It would not be bright enough. It would not have enough luminosity. If it did hypothetically, we would see the image at the same time as the Sun, but this isn't possible even with a telescope.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Oh, of course - the bigger something is, the sooner we see it! And the sun is so big we see it instantly!

Obviously you have no understanding of efferent vision (and why seeing in real time is possible, even though light travels at a finite speed), because if you did, you would not make these kinds of comments.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by But

Sunset on Mars | The Planetary Society

This is a photo of a sunset on Mars. The rover has very precise clocks on board. Explain what happens when the picture is transmitted by radio to Earth.

I really think this point needs to be addressed.

You see, we can easily see when sunset occurs at any point on Mars by watching with telescopes to see when the terminator reaches a particular point on the planet's surface. (That is the definition of "sunset.") If, as peacegirl claims, we see in "real time," then on-site probes and Earth-based telescopes would see it happening at the same time.

If, on the other hand, all of our previous experience in such matters is correct, then Earth-based telescopes should see the sunset occurring several minutes after on-site probes do.



So, which is it? If Lessans is right and we see in "real time," then Earth-based telescopes and on-site probes will see sunset occurring at the same time. If Lessans is wrong and we don't see in real time, then Earth-based telescopes and on-site probes will see sunset occurring at different times.

Nota bene: This experiment has been done -- repeatedly.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously you have no understanding of efferent vision (and why seeing in real time is possible, even though light travels at a finite speed), because if you did, you would not make these kinds of comments.

So you lied about putting everything on hold till the 12th, just as expected.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Nota bene: This experiment has been done -- repeatedly.

Any experiment or data that disproves Lessans or contradicts his ideas, will be dismissed out of hand, - par for the course.

[Stephen Maturin]

Not everyone who participates in this thread also participates in peacegirl's idiot anti-vax thread, so it's likely that some of you haven't seen But's masterpiece:

show spoiler

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously you have no understanding of efferent vision (and why seeing in real time is possible, even though light travels at a finite speed), because if you did, you would not make these kinds of comments.

Obviously no-one has any real understanding of efferent vision as you and Lessans have described it, because it is all nonsense, it is not possible and is not the way vision works.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I really think this point needs to be addressed.

You see, we can easily see when sunset occurs at any point on Mars by watching with telescopes to see when the terminator reaches a particular point on the planet's surface.

What effect will this discovery have on NASA's plans for manned Mars missions?

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would not be bright enough. It would not have enough luminosity. If it did hypothetically, we would see the image at the same time as the Sun, but this isn't possible even with a telescope.

Please provide links to experiments that have been done that support your view point.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I really think this point needs to be addressed.

You see, we can easily see when sunset occurs at any point on Mars by watching with telescopes to see when the terminator reaches a particular point on the planet's surface. (That is the definition of "sunset.") If, as peacegirl claims, we see in "real time," then on-site probes and Earth-based telescopes would see it happening at the same time.

If, on the other hand, all of our previous experience in such matters is correct, then Earth-based telescopes should see the sunset occurring several minutes after on-site probes do.



So, which is it? If Lessans is right and we see in "real time," then Earth-based telescopes and on-site probes will see sunset occurring at the same time. If Lessans is wrong and we don't see in real time, then Earth-based telescopes and on-site probes will see sunset occurring at different times.

Nota bene: This experiment has been done -- repeatedly.

No it hasn't. Show me one where the setting of the Sun is seen at a different time depending on distance. How can someone see this much detail from Earth to Mars even with a powerful telescope?

Seeing Mars With A Telescope – One Minute Astronomer

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can someone see this much detail from Earth even with a powerful telescope?

Seeing Mars With A Telescope – One Minute Astronomer

Do you realize you have just linked to a blog about amateur astronomy, where he describes the (frankly still rather impressive) pictures he can manage in his back garden?

You googled for the first thing you could find and linked it without even reading it, didn't you? What a dishonest soul you are!

Of course, even with your back garden telescope, it's not hard to see when sunset occurs at a particular point on a distant planet. Our bigger telescopes are very much good enough for us to know where our rovers and probes are, and to identify when sunset has occured for them by watching the terminator (you know what that is, right? That's the black line demarcating the part of the planet now in darkness from the part still in sunlight). Here's a lovely shot of Mars from Hubble, which shows the sunset sweeping over the planet, while it's in the midst of a dust storm.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it hasn't. Show me one where the setting of the Sun is at a different time depending on distance. How can someone see this much detail from Earth even with a powerful telescope?

If Peacegirl is ignorant of how something is done or can be done, then it must be impossible, she can't imagine anything beyond her own very limited knowledge. Unfortunately I have encountered people like this before, and it is useless to try and explain anything to them, they just deny it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Do you realize you have just linked to a blog about amateur astronomy, where he describes the (frankly still rather impressive) pictures he can manage in his back garden?

You googled for the first thing you could find and linked it without even reading it, didn't you? What a dishonest soul you are!

Of course, even with your back garden telescope, it's not hard to see when sunset occurs at a particular point on a distant planet. Our bigger telescopes are very much good enough for us to know where our rovers and probes are, and to identify when sunset has occured for them by watching the terminator (you know what that is, right? That's the black line demarcating the part of the planet now in darkness from the part still in sunlight). Here's a lovely shot of Mars from Hubble, which shows the sunset sweeping over the planet, while it's in the midst of a dust storm.

I'm not sure how that disproves real time vision. The data from rovers and probes would be sent to Earth in delayed time but that is not what we're talking about.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it hasn't. Show me one where the setting of the Sun is seen at a different time depending on distance. How can someone see this much detail from Earth to Mars even with a powerful telescope?

Seeing Mars With A Telescope – One Minute Astronomer

The location of the rover is known exactly. We also know the local time on Mars, the distance to Earth, Mars' orientation, etc. Mars is about 5 light minutes from Earth and the sunset takes less than 3 minutes. There is no way anyone could miss this.

http://blogs.agu.org/martianchronicl...s-are-on-mars/

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure how that disproves real time vision. The data from rovers and probes would be sent to Earth in delayed time but that is not what we're talking about.

We know what time the rover records sunset. It sends that data back to us.

We also know what time sunset for the rover is by looking in our telescope and watching for when we see sunset happen at the rover's position.

If we see in real time, we'd see sunset occur for the rover (by looking at in our telescope and noting when the terminator crosses rover's position) the same time the rover does. We can check what time it recorded sunset when its data arrives.

But we don't, so we don't see in real time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

We know what time the rover records sunset. It sends that data back to us.

We also know what time sunset for the rover is by looking in our telescope and watching for when we see sunset happen at the rover's position.

If we see in real time, we'd see sunset occur for the rover (by looking at in our telescope and noting when the terminator crosses rover's position) the same time the rover does. We can check what time it recorded sunset when its data arrives.

But we don't, so we don't see in real time.

How is it possible to see sunset occur for rover by looking looking our telescopes when earth telescopes don't have that kind of magnification? We receive data sent to us by rover, which is delayed because it takes time to transmit the data.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How is it possible to see sunset occur for rover by looking looking our telescopes when earth telescopes don't have that kind of magnification? We receive data sent to us by rover, which is delayed because it takes time to transmit the data.

Did you read the link? The position and orientation of the rovers and thereby the position and orientation of Mars relative to Earth can be measured to within a few meters with Doppler radar alone. Then images of orbiting spacecraft and the rover's own camera images narrow the position down to the exact location.

You're not going to find a loophole, sorry.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by But

You're not going to find a loophole, sorry.

In that case, it's time for Canned Lessantonian Bullshit Response No. 382: "There must be something else going on there!"©

[But]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

In that case, it's time for Canned Lessantonian Bullshit Response No. 382: "There must be something else going on there!"©

And if you can't figure out what else could be going on there, "It looks like a slam dunk, but is it?"

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure how that disproves real time vision. The data from rovers and probes would be sent to Earth in delayed time but that is not what we're talking about.

The truth is that you don't have any idea what we are talking about, you are so ingrained with your father's nonsense and willful ignorance that you can't comprehend any of this information that people are trying to present to you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dragar

We know what time the rover records sunset. It sends that data back to us.

We also know what time sunset for the rover is by looking in our telescope and watching for when we see sunset happen at the rover's position.

If we see in real time, we'd see sunset occur for the rover (by looking at in our telescope and noting when the terminator crosses rover's position) the same time the rover does. We can check what time it recorded sunset when its data arrives.

But we don't, so we don't see in real time.

Let me guess, if the Rover sends the photo and data immediately after it takes the photo we would get the data and see the sunset on Mars at the same time, because the data with the photo travels back to Earth at the same speed as the light from the image of the sunset.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How is it possible to see sunset occur for rover by looking looking our telescopes when earth telescopes don't have that kind of magnification? We receive data sent to us by rover, which is delayed because it takes time to transmit the data.

Peacegirl doesn't want this to be true because it contradicts her father's book, so she denies that it is even possible.