A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

You're right, I'm sorry. Maybe Newton's constant really does swell with the spring rain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

You're right, I'm sorry. Maybe Newton's constant really does swell with the spring rain.

Give it up my dear Dragar. You must consider the impossible (that which appears to be) before you will ever know whether something is true.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You must consider the impossible (that which appears to be) before you will ever know whether something is true.

More pseudo-profound bullshit.

"Those more receptive to bullshit are less reflective, lower in cognitive ability (i.e., verbal and fluid intelligence, numeracy), are more prone to ontological confusions and conspiratorial ideation, are more likely to hold religious and paranormal beliefs, and are more likely to endorse complementary and alternative medicine."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

More pseudo-profound bullshit.

"Those more receptive to bullshit are less reflective, lower in cognitive ability (i.e., verbal and fluid intelligence, numeracy), are more prone to ontological confusions and conspiratorial ideation, are more likely to hold religious and paranormal beliefs, and are more likely to endorse complementary and alternative medicine."

So the writing is on the wall, right? You have come to a conclusion yet there has been no investigation of his claims. You don't think that is necessary since you already believe (i.e. know) that he was wrong. That is not good scientific investigation. Sorry.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Two of Jupiter's satellites, Europa and Ganymede, pull Io into an elliptical orbit around Jupiter. Differences in the strength of Jupiter's gravitational pull as the distance between the planet and Io varies causes slight changes in Io's shape.

StarChild: Status Code 404 Dynamic Web Page.

As thedoc already noticed, these irregularities do not happen without reason: we know the reasons.

What is more: the 4 big Galilean moons, on which Roemer based his measurements, orbit around Jupiter in 1.7 till 16.7 days. (See here).

The shift in time Roemer noticed depends on the distance of Jupiter to the earth only (has noting to do with the seasons). You could compare the Jupiter's moon system with a clock: when the distance to earth is the biggest, the clock is a bit behind, and a bit more than half a year later, when the distance to earth is the smallest, it is a bit ahead. And so this clock is interchanging a bit behind and a bit ahead in a rhythm that only depends on the distance between Jupiter and the earth. Any irregularities in the orbits of the moons are much too small to explain this effect, but it fits exactly with the distance and the speed of light.

Later, independent, earth bound measurements of the velocity of light showed that Roemer's estimate was more or less correct. And much later, now that we are sending space probes to Jupiter, which have close and exact encounters with Jupiter's moons, we all perfectly know how these moons move. Well, nearly all of us...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

As thedoc already noticed, these irregularities do not happen without reason: we know the reasons.

What is more: the 4 big Galilean moons, on which Roemer based his measurements, orbit around Jupiter in 1.7 till 16.7 days. (See here).

The shift in time Roemer noticed depends on the distance of Jupiter to the earth only (has noting to do with the seasons). You could compare the Jupiter's moon system with a clock: when the distance to earth is the biggest, the clock is a bit behind, and a bit more than half a year later, when the distance to earth is the smallest, it is a bit ahead. And so this clock is interchanging a bit behind and a bit behind in a rhythm that only depends on the distance between Jupiter and the earth. Any irregularities in the orbits of the moons are much too small to explain this effect, but it fits exactly with the distance and the speed of light.

Later, independent, earth bound measurements of the velocity of light showed that Roemer's estimate was more or less correct. And much later, now that we are sending space probes to Jupiter, which have close and exact encounters with Jupiter's moons, we all perfectly know how these moons move. Well, nearly all of us...

It is obvious that light had to be present at Roemer's telescope to see the eclipse. If there was no light present from Io during the 6 months, then it makes sense there would be a delay. This just means that the conditions were not met for efferent vision to occur. IOW, even though there was a delay of 17 minutes due to the absence of light, this in and of itself does not mean there is proof that Jupiter's Io was being interpreted as an image in Roemer's brain. That's was what Lessans disputed. Roemer was actually seeing the eclipse directly (with the use of his telescope) once the light arrived. I hope this makes sense.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope this makes sense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is obvious that light had to be present at Roemer's telescope to see the eclipse. If there was no light present from Io during the 6 months, then it makes sense there would be a delay. This just means that the conditions were not met for efferent vision to occur. IOW, even though there was a delay of 17 minutes due to the absence of light, this in and of itself does not mean there is proof that Jupiter's Io was being interpreted as an image in Roemer's brain. That's was what Lessans disputed. Roemer was actually seeing the eclipse directly (with the use of his telescope) once the light arrived. I hope this makes sense.

Like everything else you have ever posted it makes no sense at all. Lessans was speculating out of ignorance of what was actually happening. If Roemer had to wait 17 minutes for the light to arrive, how could he see an event directly that happened 17 minutes ago? Roemer had to be seeing an event in the past or he wouldn't have seen it at all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope this makes sense.

It seems like your brain is totally disconnected from reality. "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree." Was your mother as disconnected as your father was?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is obvious that light had to be present at Roemer's telescope to see the eclipse. If there was no light present from Io during the 6 months, then it makes sense there would be a delay.

You are making absolutely no sense. 6 months? The eclipse happens once every 1.7 days and the light-time delay is on the order of minutes.

This just means that the conditions were not met for efferent vision to occur.

Are you now saying that light has to be at the telescope in order to see the moon?

IOW, even though there was a delay of 17 minutes due to the absence of light, this in and of itself does not mean there is proof that Jupiter's Io was being interpreted as an image in Roemer's brain. That's was what Lessans disputed.

And he said that we see in real time, which is obviously wrong.

Roemer was actually seeing the eclipse directly (with the use of his telescope) once the light arrived. I hope this makes sense.

Then the eclipse would be too long. The moon would go dark 17 minutes (or whatever it is at that distance) too early. In reality, we keep seeing the moon for 17 minutes when it's already pitch black outside for an observer on Io.

[thedoc]

It has been documented that astronomers can see the moon for 17 minutes after it is known to have moved behind Jupiter, and this disproves Lessans ideas about real time vision. If Lessans ideas were correct astronomers would be able to see the moon move behind (or be eclipsed by Jupiter) when it happens, not 17 minutes later, and the same applies to the moons transits in front of Jupiter, they are observed as happening 17 minutes after they are known to have happened. All this has been confirmed by observations by the probes that are in orbit around Jupiter, they have confirmed the positions of the moons. Lessans was wrong.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Here is some clarification: no, it is not true that that different seasons produce different gravitational forces acting upon the moving body. That is something that you just made up.

I think it is reasonable that for some planets the ellipitical nature of their orbits around a sun could cause seasonal changes as the planet moves closer to or more distant from the sun. Although, in the case of Earth the change of seasons is due to the planet's axial tilt and not its distance from the sun. So, there could well be a causal connection between a planet's orbit around its sun and seasonal changes on the planet. That having been said, what peacegirl has done (in her usual charming manner) is reverse the order of causality. Thus making the changing of the seasons responsible for eccentricities in the planet's orbit.

Disclaimer: I am not a scientist (that should be pretty obvious) or even a pretend scientist like Lessans.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I think it is reasonable that for some planets the ellipitical nature of their orbits around a sun could cause seasonal changes as the planet moves closer to or more distant from the sun. Although, in the case of Earth the change of seasons is due to the planet's axial tilt and not its distance from the sun. So, there could well be a causal connection between a planet's orbit around its sun and seasonal changes on the planet. That having been said, what peacegirl has done (in her usual charming manner) is reverse the order of causality. Thus making the changing of the seasons responsible for eccentricities in the planet's orbit.

Disclaimer: I am not a scientist (that should be pretty obvious) or even a pretend scientist like Lessans.

I do tend to follow scientific discoveries closely though I am not a scientist myself. But in the case of the Earth the axial tilt does cause the seasons but the distance from the Sun is just the opposite, farther away when the northern hemisphere is angled toward the Sun and closer when the north is angled away from the Sun , so the distance tends to attenuate the severity of the seasons in the northern hemisphere. The southern hemisphere gets hit harder, colder in the winter and warmer in the summer, but what do I care, I live in the north.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm surprised at you Vivisectus not due to your disagreement (which you are entitled to), but by your sarcasm. How in the world could I ever discuss his other discovery with you regarding determinism when all you do is criticize? Nothing surprises me anymore. Please don't respond and tell me that I haven't followed through. There's no way we can have a meaningful conversation, as unfortunate as that is.

Don't forget I am all on board with the discovery and am still waiting until it is November so we can start compiling the growing list of evidence that supports it!

I just thought it was very funny that you seem to think gravity is seasonal.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope this makes sense.

No, it doesn't. Not a bit.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is obvious that light had to be present at Roemer's telescope to see the eclipse. If there was no light present from Io during the 6 months, then it makes sense there would be a delay. This just means that the conditions were not met for efferent vision to occur. IOW, even though there was a delay of 17 minutes due to the absence of light, this in and of itself does not mean there is proof that Jupiter's Io was being interpreted as an image in Roemer's brain. That's was what Lessans disputed. Roemer was actually seeing the eclipse directly (with the use of his telescope) once the light arrived.

Rømer saw the eclipses of Io (orbital period 42.45930686 hours) using a telescope. According to you, this vision of the eclipses must be instantaneous, so we should see the eclipses very regularly, so Rømer could never have seen Io 'going behind' or 'going ahead'. Yet he did. This falsifies instantaneous vision. The perfect fit with the laboratory measurements of the velocity of light, especially with later, much more exact measurements of these changes in eclipse-times show how precise the fit is. So it is 100% sure that the explanation of why we see these time shifts, is the time the light needs to enter the telescope in order we see the eclipses.

So really Lessans' idea about instantaneous vision was already falsified for centuries before he wrote his book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

No, it doesn't. Not a bit.

Rømer saw the eclipses of Io (orbital period 42.45930686 hours) using a telescope. According to you, this vision of the eclipses must be instantaneous, so we should see the eclipses very regularly, so Rømer could never have seen Io 'going behind' or 'going ahead'. Yet he did. This falsifies instantaneous vision. The perfect fit with the laboratory measurements of the velocity of light, especially with later, much more exact measurements of these changes in eclipse-times show how precise the fit is. So it is 100% sure that the explanation of why we see these time shifts, is the time the light needs to enter the telescope in order we see the eclipses.

So really Lessans' idea about instantaneous vision was already falsified for centuries before he wrote his book.

I know it sounds airtight. There seems to be no other explanation. I really get it. But if you attempt to understand Lessans' explanation as to why vision is efferent, it is an equally compelling account which cannot be easily shrugged off.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Don't forget I am all on board with the discovery and am still waiting until it is November so we can start compiling the growing list of evidence that supports it!

I just thought it was very funny that you seem to think gravity is seasonal.

It's not seasonal but with the attracting body acting on the satellite depending on how close to the attracting body the satellite is, it will speed up or slow down. Kepler's law keeps the orbit at a steady pace. I still wonder if there is another explanation that could account for the 17 minute delay.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know it sounds airtight. There seems to be no other explanation.

There is no other explanation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if you attempt to understand Lessans' explanation as to why vision is efferent, it is an equally compelling account which cannot be easily shrugged off.

It is some interpretations of some observations about children and dogs of one man on one side, against the exact theories of physics and biology, against the best observations and theories of psychology and ethology, that have no inconsistency with each other at all, on the other side.

No sane person would hesitate where truth lies.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not seasonal but with the attracting body acting on the satellite depending on how close to the attracting body the satellite is, it will speed up or slow down. Kepler's law keeps the orbit at a steady pace. I still wonder if there is another explanation that could account for the 17 minute delay.

A 17 minutes delay, occurring in the course of 6-7 months, always being exactly in sync with the distance between the earth and Jupiter, independent of the known irregularities in the orbits of Io... No, Peacegirl, there is no other explanation, forget it.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not seasonal but with the attracting body acting on the satellite depending on how close to the attracting body the satellite is, it will speed up or slow down. Kepler's law keeps the orbit at a steady pace. I still wonder if there is another explanation that could account for the 17 minute delay.

It would be hard to imagine what it could be! It is a bit like trying to work out how the earth can still be flat despite seeming to be a globe: so much evidence to the contrary that you'd need some sort of magic to account for it all.

But it is unnecessary to even look for an explanation: what your father wrote (at least in the abridged version you put on the internet) is equally well explained by what we know about how the brain processes sight: sight is not passive, we take visual information and process it into a model, based to a surprising amount on what we expect to see.

You could say that your father perceived this, and was largely right, although he was wrong about what caused this. It leaves his ideas about the relationship between what we have learned and how we perceive reality completely intact, and you do not have to ignore all the evidence from physics, physiology, etc.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not seasonal but with the attracting body acting on the satellite depending on how close to the attracting body the satellite is, it will speed up or slow down. Kepler's law keeps the orbit at a steady pace. I still wonder if there is another explanation that could account for the 17 minute delay.

No, Kepler's law does not keep the orbital speed at a steady pace, but the degree of eccentricity of the orbit orbit will indicate the difference in speed at different parts of the orbit. More eccentric will give more difference in speed, and a less eccentric orbit will give less difference in speed from one part of the orbit to another. Usually the closer to the planet the faster the body moves and when the body is farther away the slower it moves.

[thedoc]

Kepler's law states that the orbit will sweep out equal areas in equal time so when the body is closer to the focus it will be moving faster.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Kepler's law states that the orbit will sweep out equal areas in equal time so when the body is closer to the focus it will be moving faster.

That makes sense.

[peacegirl]

I need some clarification on the experiment of Jupiter's Io that I can't seem to find online. Maybe the experts here can help me figure this out.