A revolution in thought

[GdB]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well, simply ask, and see what answer you can get.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Lessans version of efferent vision has no evidence and is only compelling to you, no-one else sees any validity in it at all. The afferent account of vision sounds airtight because it is, and there is no other explanation that accounts for all the data, and Lessans version of efferent vision accounts for none of the data, except to say "there's something else going on" and that doesn't account for nor explain anything. You are only saying this to make others think that you are considering afferent vision, when you are not, you are only giving lip service for the benefit of the other members on this thread. You have openly stated that you will not consider any other explanation than efferent vision and will turn a blind eye to any data that supports afferent vision. You are the epitome of confirmation bias.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by 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.

What is your question?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What is your question?

I'm curious what Roemer saw? What did the image of Io look like (6 months later) in comparison to the image when first seen?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Well, simply ask, and see what answer you can get.

Scroll up. I'm curious to know the answer to my last post, if any of you have it.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm curious what Roemer saw? What did the image of Io look like (6 months later) in comparison to the image when first seen?

What he saw was Io becoming dark, or popping up out of the dark: i.e. Io disappearing in the shadow of Jupiter or appearing out of Jupiter's shadow again.

I think his measurements could be pretty precise, if you see the kind of telsope he was using:



I think this explanation should do it.

This is more or less the clearest picture I found:



This one expresses a bit better that Jupiter should not stand completely in front the eclipse.



In order to see Io become dark, one must be able to look a little bit behind Jupiter, which is only possible when Sun, Moon and Jupiter do not stand in a straight line.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Oh, and I found this one:



Assuming everything orbits clockwise, one would Io see disappear in the dark (i.e. it vanishes) just before it would disappear behind Jupiter.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

What he saw was Io becoming dark, or popping up out of the dark: i.e. Io disappearing in the shadow of Jupiter or appearing out of Jupiter's shadow again.

I think his measurements could be pretty precise, if you see the kind of telsope he was using:



I think this explanation should do it.

This is more or less the clearest picture I found:



This one expresses a bit better that Jupiter should not stand completely in front the eclipse.



In order to see Io become dark, one must be able to look a little bit behind Jupiter, which is only possible when Sun, Moon and Jupiter do not stand in a straight line.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Oh, and I found this one:



Assuming everything orbits clockwise, one would Io see disappear in the dark (i.e. it vanishes) just before it would disappear behind Jupiter.

From the diagram, the image of Io looks exactly the same even though there is a delay during part of the year. Is that correct?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm curious what Roemer saw? What did the image of Io look like (6 months later) in comparison to the image when first seen?

Roemer was observing the eclipses of Io by Jupiter, in other words he was watching for when Io would disappear behind Jupiter. Roemer noted that the disappearance was 22 minutes later than expected (the actual number was 16.7 minutes) when the Earth was farthest away from Jupiter than when it was closest. He reasoned that this was due to the additional distance light had to travel when the Earth was farther away. He knew the orbit of Io did not vary in its trip around Jupiter which takes only 1.769 Earth days, so it must have been due to light traveling the extra distance.

Here is a more detailed explanation,

Ole Roemer and the Speed of Light

The orbits of the 4 large moons of Jupiter had been observed since Galileo and often were used as a clock because of the regularity of their orbits, so the timing of the events were well known at his time and any discrepancy could be accurately noted.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Roemer was observing the eclipses of Io by Jupiter, in other words he was watching for when Io would disappear behind Jupiter. Roemer noted that the disappearance was 22 minutes later than expected (the actual number was 16.7 minutes) when the Earth was farthest away from Jupiter than when it was closest. He reasoned that this was due to the additional distance light had to travel when the Earth was farther away. He knew the orbit of Io did not vary in its trip around Jupiter which takes only 1.769 Earth days, so it must have been due to light traveling the extra distance.

Here is a more detailed explanation,

Ole Roemer and the Speed of Light

The orbits of the 4 large moons of Jupiter had been observed since Galileo and often were used as a clock because of the regularity of their orbits, so the timing of the events were well known at his time and any discrepancy could be accurately noted.

From Roemer's vantage point, Jupiter's Io was the same size during both seasons. My question is: When something is farther away from an observer, shouldn't it appear much smaller than when it is closer? For example, a car that is seen three blocks away looks much smaller than the same car when it's only one block away, so why didn't Jupiter's Io look larger during the summer months and smaller during the winter months when the light took longer to reach Earth? Maybe the difference in size was seen by Roemer, but the diagram didn't show it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

From Roemer's vantage point, Jupiter's Io was the same size during both seasons. My question is: When something is farther away from an observer, shouldn't it appear much smaller than when it is closer? For example, a car that is seen three blocks away looks much smaller than the same car when it's only one block away, so why didn't Jupiter's Io look larger during the summer months and smaller during the winter months when the light took longer to reach Earth? Maybe the difference in size was seen by Roemer, but the diagram didn't show it.

No, several sources have noted a difference in size from one observation to another, closer is a slightly larger image than farther away, I just didn't think that was going to be a question or an issue.

The diagrams were showing the location, and not the relative size of the image as seen from Earth. You really need to focus on what is important, it sounds like you're trying to find some minor point to criticize, rather than picking up on the information presented.

[The Lone Ranger]

Jupiter (and thus Io) is only about 33% closer to us at closest approach than it is when it's at its farthest from us. Thus, there's only about a 10% apparent difference in Io's size between when it's closest to us and when it's farthest from us.

This has been well known and understood for centuries.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

No, several sources have noted a difference in size from one observation to another, closer is a slightly larger image than farther away, I just didn't think that was going to be a question or an issue.

The diagrams were showing the location, and not the relative size of the image as seen from Earth. You really need to focus on what is important, it sounds like you're trying to find some minor point to criticize, rather than picking up on the information presented.

I'm not trying to criticize a minor point. This is a legitimate question. Think about it. We're talking about light traveling for an extra 17 minutes. That would be enough of a distance for Roemer to see Io much smaller than his first observation. Can people find any information on this?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not trying to criticize a minor point. This is a legitimate question. Think about it. We're talking about light traveling for an extra 17 minutes. That would be enough of a distance for Roemer to see Io much smaller than his first observation. Can people find any information on this?

Apparently most observers think that this detail was so obvious as to be not worth mentioning, only someone who is grasping at straws would think it worth being critical of. I do remember reading about the difference in the apparent size, but I can't remember where I read it and I don't think it is a really important issue. If it really matters so much to you, look it up and see what you can find, rather than asking everyone else to spoon feed it to you, something you have refused to do with your fathers book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Jupiter (and thus Io) is only about 33% closer to us at closest approach than it is when it's at its farthest from us. Thus, there's only about a 10% apparent difference in Io's size between when it's closest to us and when it's farthest from us.

This has been well known and understood for centuries.

It should not be difficult to see the difference in size, even if it's miniscule. I'm not sure how you came to a 10% apparent difference rather than a 30% difference. Can you explain without going into a sermon about how stupid I am?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Apparently most observers think that this detail was so obvious as to be not worth mentioning, only someone who is grasping at straws would think it worth being critical of. I do remember reading about the difference in the apparent size, but I can't remember where I read it and I don't think it is a really important issue. If it really matters so much to you, look it up and see what you can find, rather than asking everyone else to spoon feed it to you, something you have refused to do with your fathers book.

Shut up about my father's book doc. I had to spoon feed half of chapter one and two to you, so you have no room to talk. You're such a hypocrite. My point about size is well taken. You just can't handle it. If anyone else finds something, pleaasseeee come forward. The fact that the diagrams don't indicate a change in size is strange to me, especially when they're discussing large distances of space/time. After all, this is science and it's suppose to be as exact as possible in its representation.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It should not be difficult to see the difference in size, even if it's miniscule. I'm not sure how you came to a 10% apparent difference rather than a 30% difference. Can you explain without going into a sermon about how stupid I am?

You have repeatedly claimed that you understand the inverse square law. Apparently, you do not.

Assuming you weren't lying, and that you do understand the inverse square law, do the math yourself. It's roughly 4th-grade level, so you should be able to handle it.


And a 10% difference in apparent size is not something that the average person would be able to see. Only with a really good telescope and precise measurements could that small a difference in Io's apparent size be noticed.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that the diagrams don't indicate a change in size is strange to me, especially when they're discussing large distances of space/time. After all, this is science and it's suppose to be as exact as possible in its representation.

Most of the observation of an astronomical body is done when the object is closest to the Earth, that is when astronomers can get the best images with the most detail. Observations at other times are done to verify the location of the object. The difference in size from closest approach to the farthermost point is well understood and accepted and is not deemed worthy of comment, except to a nitpicker who just wants to find something to criticize. You are becoming tiresome with your willful ignorance. You are coming at this from the point of trying to prove your fathers book and you need to look it from the aspect of reality rather than fantasy. The diagrams were denoting the location of the objects and from the perspective of the diagrams the objects were always the same size. It's only your willful ignorance and inability to understand science that would make you even question this minor detail. There is nothing strange about the diagrams illustrating all the objects the same size because the diagram is not showing the objects as viewed from the Earth, if you'll note the diagram is shown from outside the orbit of Jupiter at 90 degrees from the plane of the orbits with the Sun at the center, probably not to scale.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Most of the observation of an astronomical body is done when the object is closest to the Earth, that is when astronomers can get the best images with the most detail. Observations at other times are done to verify the location of the object. The difference in size from closest approach to the farthermost point is well understood and accepted and is not deemed worthy of comment, except to a nitpicker who just wants to find something to criticize. You are becoming tiresome with your willful ignorance. You are coming at this from the point of trying to prove your fathers book and you need to look it from the aspect of reality rather than fantasy. The diagrams were denoting the location of the objects and from the perspective of the diagrams the objects were always the same size. It's only your willful ignorance and inability to understand science that would make you even question this minor detail. There is nothing strange about the diagrams illustrating all the objects the same size because the diagram is not showing the objects as viewed from the Earth, if you'll note the diagram is shown from outside the orbit of Jupiter at 90 degrees from the plane of the orbits with the Sun at the center, probably not to scale.

You're being super defensive even though my question about size is legitimate. It's not a minor detail, especially when this account of vision is being challenged. Roemer made his observations from Earth. The experiments have been done since Roemer's time so you would think someone would bring up the difference in apparent size, even if it's small.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The experiments have been done since Roemer's time so you would think someone would bring up the difference in apparent size, even if it's small.

I've never once read an academic paper which says that fish generally live in water. You know why? Because if you actually need to be told that, you don't know "fish" are -- in which case, the paper is wasted on you.


Similarly, when writing up a report on the timing of satellite orbits, no one in his or her right mind would bother to point out that Io looks roughly 10% bigger when viewed at Jupiter's closest approach when compared to its apparent size at Jupiter's farthest distant from Earth. Because if you actually need to be told that, then you know nothing of basic physics, nor do you understand the inverse square law -- and thus, the report is wasted on you.

Not to mention that, when viewed through a typical Earth-bound telescope a 10% difference in Io's apparent size would not be apparent to an observer, and wouldn't even be detectable without fairly precise measurements.



And yes, you are being more than a little disingenuous. You're transparently searching for something, anything that you can latch onto and say, "See? This means that Lessans was right all along," though you haven't the slightest comprehension of what you're talking about, or its significance. Nor do you see how transparently and how obviously you're flailing about in search of an excuse -- any excuse -- to refuse to face the fact that Daddy might possibly have been mistaken.

You might as well just stick your fingers in your ears and repeatedly shout "Was Not!" It would be a lot more honest, and would not be a significant departure from your standard operating procedure.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're being super defensive even though my question about size is legitimate. It's not a minor detail, especially when this account of vision is being challenged.

Roemer made his observations from Earth. The experiments have been done since Roemer's time so you would think someone would bring up the difference in apparent size, even if it's small.

I've had over 3 years of your willful ignorance to set me up for your evasions and diversions, so expecting some ulterior motive on your part is not to be unexpected.

The difference in size from observations from different distances is well understood and accepted by everyone, - except you. So mentioning it is not something to be expected. Unless you are just trying to dig up something to criticize, so why should anyone bring it up? Just to satisfy a doubter like you? not likely. You would just be brushed off as someone too lazy to educate yourself in what has already known and accepted. And it is not known and accepted because someone said so, but because it has been supported by observations and experiments.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I've never once read an academic paper which says that fish generally live in water. You know why? Because if you actually need to be told that, you don't know "fish" are -- in which case, the paper is wasted on you.


Similarly, when writing up a report on the timing of satellite orbits, no one in his or her right mind would bother to point out that Io looks roughly 10% bigger when viewed at Jupiter's closest approach when compared to its apparent size at Jupiter's farthest distant from Earth. Because if you actually need to be told that, then you know nothing of basic physics, nor do you understand the inverse square law -- and thus, the report is wasted on you.

Not to mention that, when viewed through a typical Earth-bound telescope a 10% difference in Io's apparent size would not be apparent to an observer, and wouldn't even be detectable without fairly precise measurements.



And yes, you are being more than a little disingenuous. You're transparently searching for something, anything that you can latch onto and say, "See? This means that Lessans was right all along," though you haven't the slightest comprehension of what you're talking about, or its significance. Nor do you see how transparently and how obviously you're flailing about in search of an excuse -- any excuse -- to refuse to face the fact that Daddy might possibly have been mistaken.

You might as well just stick your fingers in your ears and repeatedly shout "Was Not!" It would be a lot more honest, and would not be a significant departure from your standard operating procedure.

Lone Ranger, you don't even know what his observations were, so you are disputing what you have no knowledge of. You're all the same. You've already made up your mind that he was wrong, and anything I say to defend his claim goes on deaf ears. I am not flailing about in search of an excuse. I'm trying to understand why we would not be able to see the difference in size due to the inverse square law. I still don't understand where you came to a 10% apparent difference rather than a 30% difference, which would be noticeable. Hell, even a 10% difference in size would be noticeable, and it would not take special instruments to detect it. Who are you kidding?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I've had over 3 years of your willful ignorance to set me up for your evasions and diversions, so expecting some ulterior motive on your part is not to be unexpected.

The difference in size from observations from different distances is well understood and accepted by everyone, - except you. So mentioning it is not something to be expected. Unless you are just trying to dig up something to criticize, so why should anyone bring it up? Just to satisfy a doubter like you? not likely. You would just be brushed off as someone too lazy to educate yourself in what has already known and accepted. And it is not known and accepted because someone said so, but because it has been supported by observations and experiments.

Show me the proof doc. I can't find anything online (I'm still searching) that shows exactly what Roemer saw as the seasons changed and the distance grew farther. And by the way, it is such a joke that you believe my father's observations were nothing more than "he said so". You're completely out the door.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lone Ranger, you don't even know what his observations were,

You have never, not even once, provided us with an actual example of any observations he made. Sure, you've given us some claims that he made (most of which are demonstrably false), but that's hardly the same thing.

I am not flailing about in search of an excuse.

Liar.

I'm trying to understand why we would not be able to see the difference in size due to the inverse square law.

Liar. What's more, you've just demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about.

I still don't understand where you came to a 10% apparent difference rather than a 30% difference, which would be noticeable.

Then do the 4th-grade-level math. You have repeatedly claimed that you understand the inverse square law. So either do the math for yourself and see where the number comes from or admit that you were lying -- yet again -- when you made that claim.

Hell, even a 10% difference in size would be noticeable, and it would not take special instruments to detect it. Who are you kidding?

Really? So, I tell you what. I'll provide you with 2 pictures; one of them is a picture of an object that is 10 pixels across and one is 11 pixels across. I won't tell you which one is which. You'll get the first picture today. You'll get the second picture 6 months from now. Or maybe I'll just show you the same picture again.

If you can tell me which is object is 10% bigger than the other -- or if one of them is 10% bigger, then I'll believe you. (Here's a hint: you can't do it. Nobody can.)


Never mind; I'll make it really easy for you. One of these lines is 10% shorter than the others. Do be sure to tell us which one it is -- without counting pixels. According to you, it should be obvious.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As I look again, I'm really not sure?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me the proof doc. I can't find anything online (I'm still searching) that shows exactly what Roemer saw as the seasons changed and the distance grew farther. And by the way, it is such a joke that you believe my father's observations were nothing more than "he said so". You're completely out the door.

Did you even read my post, I'll repeat what others have stated, you can't prove a negative. If it isn't there, there is no proof. You are just making an impossible demand because it has been stated that the information is not there, so you demand to be shown what is not there. I don't know that I have ever encountered someone as willfully ignorant as you, or so dishonest, and I have encountered some really dishonest people before.

And I actually don't believe that you are searching, you are probably lying about that as well.