A revolution in thought - Page 763

peacegirl · #**19051** 08-25-2012, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But we have just done an empirical test: we fired a spacecraft at a place where we expected it to be if sight was not instant and Lessans was wrong.

If Lessans was right, it should have missed. Mars has a small diameter: it is only about 6800 KM across. It moves at 86854.19 KM/hour an hour, and it was 15 light minutes away when Curiosity landed.

So, we aimed it 21713 KM in front of where we could observe it with a telescope (or even the naked eye) at the time of the landing - more than 3 times it's diameter.

We did not aim it at the place where we knew we would be able to observe Mars optically, but where we assumed Mars was going to be, If the delay between the event and us being able to see it is exactly as long as it takes light to travel from there to here.

And yet we managed to hit a target area of about 200 x 200 KM, while we should have missed by at least 21000 KM if Lessans was right.[/QUOTE]

Taking into consideration the speed it is moving[/quote]

I understand that this whole thing sounds airtight, just like the moons of Jupiter does. I am still suggesting that when we look through a telescope, we are seeing Mars itself, not an image from light. Distance and speed would be enough to calculate correctly where Mars would be. Do you have the actual figures that were used to determine the trajectory?

davidm · #**19052** 08-25-2012, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[...]if there is more need for proof, I'm game. Let's get this done so we can have a better world. That has been my only intention all along.

There really isn't need for more proof, especially when your referring to Lessans ideas on vision. Every empirical test that has been run has been consistent with the scientific model of light and inconsistent with Lessans.

That's not true Specious. You are basing your ideas on what you believe to be true, but science has not tested efferent vision based on Lessans' claims. You can't say that something isn't true without a careful analysis and testing, and this has never been done.

Actually, no. You've been informed multiple times that the question of efferent vs. afferent vision was a legitimate scientific question at one point in time. Experimental tests proved that light detection is the mechanism by which we see, well over 100 years before Lessans even entertained the notion.

Every experiment ever conducted on vision has upheld the scientific model of vision, in contrast to Lessans ideas.

I'm not sure what experimental tests you're referring to, that have proved light detection (which I am not even debating) translates to seeing in delayed time.

As I just explained to you, every experiment that we've talked about in this stupid thread does just that.

The moons of Jupiter and the Fizeau wheel, as I just explained, depend on delayed-time seeing of light, as the very METHOD of measuring light's velocity. The experiments are purely visual. If Lessans were right, such experiments could not establish any velocity for light except "infinite." But they don't. They establish velocity c, which can only be established, in a purely visual experiment, by delayed time seeing -- the very thing Lessans claims is wrong.

Do you really expect us to believe that you are so spectacularly dense that you do not understand this? Of course, once it is understood, it proves Lessans' claims are false, which you can never admit.

The Lone Ranger · #**19053** 08-25-2012, 08:36 PM

You were given the calculations that NASA uses many months ago. It's not our fault it you can't comprehend the math.

peacegirl · #**19054** 08-25-2012, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope that, in the name of science, more empirical testing can be done. I can't do this myself, so I am depending scientists to take this knowledge seriously.

Of course you can test Lessans' claim for yourself. It's a very simple experiment, and will cost less than $100.00 in materials.

Go to Wal-Mart or some such place and buy a cheap astronomical telescope or a good pair of binoculars, and a stopwatch.

Take the telescope outside on a clear night when Earth and Jupiter are at their closest and point it at Jupiter. If you don't like Jupiter, you could use Saturn as your test-planet. If you invest in a better telescope, you could use Uranus or even Neptune. Record the times that the planet's moons are eclipsed by the planet.

Repeat the experiment exactly six months later, when the separation between Earth and your target planet is about 186,000,000 miles greater. See if the change in distance affects when we see the moons being eclipsed.

If we see in "real time," the change in distance won't have any effect on when we see the moons being eclipsed. If we don't see in "real time," the finite speed of light will impose a 17-minute difference.

Be sure to report your results. You have no excuses; any reasonably intelligent third-grader could perform the experiment and understand the results.

Why wouldn't we see a change in distance six months later? Obviously, there has been a change but to conclude that we see the moons of Jupiter's in delayed time is not conclusive. It feels airtight but it is circumstantial. I don't want to get into this again because it's not even his most important discovery, yet no one will let go of this topic even for a second.

Nah, of course you don't want to get into it again, but sure enough, every time you post here, it will be brought up and your nose will be rubbed in it, in reality.

Why wouldn't we see a change in distance six months later? :doh:

I don't know, you tell us. It's your (and Lessan's) theory. Here, I'll explain for you: if we saw in real time, as Lessans claimed, we could not discern a change in distance via seeing, because real-time seeing means, by definition, that we see everything in the universe at once! The fact that we must wait longer to see something that has moved farther from us, disproves real-time seeing by the very definition of real-time seeing. Doh!

:derpoland:

It does not David. Obviously, we have to wait longer to see something that is farther away because it takes time for the object (not the light) to enter our visual field. Time is not erased just because we see reality in the present.

peacegirl · #**19055** 08-25-2012, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You were given the calculations that NASA uses many months ago. It's not our fault it you can't comprehend the math.

I don't remember seeing any calculations that were from Nasa. LadyShea tried to get them, but I don't think she got an answer.

peacegirl · #**19056** 08-25-2012, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[...]if there is more need for proof, I'm game. Let's get this done so we can have a better world. That has been my only intention all along.

There really isn't need for more proof, especially when your referring to Lessans ideas on vision. Every empirical test that has been run has been consistent with the scientific model of light and inconsistent with Lessans.

That's not true Specious. You are basing your ideas on what you believe to be true, but science has not tested efferent vision based on Lessans' claims. You can't say that something isn't true without a careful analysis and testing, and this has never been done.

Actually, no. You've been informed multiple times that the question of efferent vs. afferent vision was a legitimate scientific question at one point in time. Experimental tests proved that light detection is the mechanism by which we see, well over 100 years before Lessans even entertained the notion.

Every experiment ever conducted on vision has upheld the scientific model of vision, in contrast to Lessans ideas.

I'm not sure what experimental tests you're referring to, that have proved light detection (which I am not even debating) translates to seeing in delayed time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

As I just explained to you, every experiment that we've talked about in this stupid thread does just that.

The moons of Jupiter and the Fizeau wheel, as I just explained, depend on delayed-time seeing of light, as the very METHOD of measuring light's velocity. The experiments are purely visual. If Lessans were right, such experiments could not establish any velocity for light except "infinite." But they don't. They establish velocity c, which can only be established, in a purely visual experiment, by delayed time seeing -- the very thing Lessans claims is wrong.

And I already said that I agree that time is finite, which is why we could measure the speed of light in the Fizeau wheel experiment. But this does not equate with seeing OBJECTS in delayed time. I do not agree that we are seeing Jupiter's moons in delayed time. It's a logical theory, but there is room for error. I didn't come here to start this conversation all over again. I came here to let people know that I hope to have the website up and running very shortly. If you don't like Lessans' claims, no one is forcing you to agree. You are free to think and do what you want. But just remember, being free in that sense does not mean you have free will. :popcorn:

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Do you really expect us to believe that you are so spectacularly dense that you do not understand this? Of course, once it is understood, it proves Lessans' claims are false, which you can never admit.

Well, that's yet to be determined. You may think it's all wrapped up, but I don't.

davidm · #**19057** 08-25-2012, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We don't see objects until they come into our field of view.

You're just as big an idiot as ever.

As was repeatedly explained to you, the Hubble Telescope has spent years taking images of objects that in many cases no longer exist at all. Far from being in our "field of view," whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, they are nonexistent. As for the others that still DO exist, not a single one of them looks like the pictures that Hubble made of them, and not any of them are in the same location in the sky as Hubble registers them.

Now, that's enough. You must be even more insane than I thought if you think I'm going to chase down your idiotic lies any longer. Others will, no doubt, but not me. And do not PM me; your PMs will be deleted unread.

peacegirl · #**19058** 08-25-2012, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We don't see objects until they come into our field of view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

You're just as big an idiot as ever.

As was repeatedly explained to you, the Hubble Telescope has spent years taking images of objects that in many cases no longer exist at all. Far from being in our "field of view," whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, they are nonexistent.

Saying this does not make it true David. You're just regurgitating the very thing that is being debated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

As for the others that still DO exist, not a single one of them looks like the pictures that Hubble made of them, and not any of them are in the same location in the sky as Hubble registers them.

Is that why we always get the same exact picture from a camera when looking at an object with the naked eye, if it's close enough? I guarantee you if we see something with a telescope, and take a picture of it, it will be the same exact picture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Now, that's enough.

Who are you to tell me that's enough, as if you're the headmaster here. Funny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

You must be even more insane than I thought if you think I'm going to chase down your idiotic lies any longer. Others will, no doubt, but not me. And do not PM me; your PMs will be deleted unread.

I'm very glad you will be leaving. Your defensiveness has gotten out of control. Anyway, I'm not here to start the conversation all over again, as I already said. You were the one that felt compelled to talk to me. So please leave and close the door behind you.

peacegirl · #**19059** 08-25-2012, 10:11 PM

I think I found the correct website address:

Untitled Document

IT WORKED!!!! You can read the book along with him. Just click on the arrow to the right of the book. It's very cool.

Just to let you all know, I'm not going to listen to any criticism of my father or his knowledge. You can talk amongst yourselves if you want, but I'm not going to participate. I hope some of you will have an interest in the rest of the book after hearing him, but that's not up to me. I accomplished my purpose which was to let all of you know that the book will be available for purchase shortly.

At this time you can't go back to an earlier place in the audio unless you refresh the page. The web designer is working to fix that.

ceptimus · #**19060** 08-25-2012, 10:38 PM

He had a nice reading voice.

thedoc · #**19061** 08-25-2012, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But we have just done an empirical test: we fired a spacecraft at a place where we expected it to be if sight was not instant and Lessans was wrong.

If Lessans was right, it should have missed. Mars has a small diameter: it is only about 6800 KM across. It moves at 86854.19 KM/hour an hour, and it was 15 light minutes away when Curiosity landed.

So, we aimed it 21713 KM in front of where we could observe it with a telescope (or even the naked eye) at the time of the landing - more than 3 times it's diameter.

We did not aim it at the place where we knew we would be able to observe Mars optically, but where we assumed Mars was going to be, If the delay between the event and us being able to see it is exactly as long as it takes light to travel from there to here.

And yet we managed to hit a target area of about 200 x 200 KM, while we should have missed by at least 21000 KM if Lessans was right.

How many times has the example of sending spacecraft to Mars been explained to her? I wonder if she even comprehends the irony of her returning here, just after we landed yet another craft on Mars, with brilliant, pinpoint success, and did so while employing precisely the delayed-time seeing that Lessans' rejected?

This example of landing a craft on Mars is such an iron-clad disproof of real-time seeing that she cannnot fail to comprehend it. Of course it's one of many dozens, if not hundreds, similar proofs we have explained to her. She must comprehend it; a child could do so. Therefore her persistence in promoting real-time seeing, which is ruled out be experiment, must be a species of sheer dishonesty. She hopes to make money off her father's nonsense, like any typical huckster.

Just in case she has figured out the ignore function.

thedoc · #**19062** 08-25-2012, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. I will demand that the people joining the forum have either read the book or listened to the audio.

And the litmus test that they have read the book, will be that they agree 100% with what Lessans has written. That will be a very small forum.

Spacemonkey · #**19063** 08-25-2012, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think I found the correct website address:

Untitled Document

IT WORKED!!!! You can read the book along with him. Just click on the arrow to the right of the book. It's very cool.

Just to let you all know, I'm not going to listen to any criticism of my father or his knowledge. You can talk amongst yourselves if you want, but I'm not going to participate. I hope some of you will have an interest in the rest of the book after hearing him, but that's not up to me. I accomplished my purpose which was to let all of you know that the book will be available for purchase shortly.

At this time you can't go back to an earlier place in the audio unless you refresh the page. The web designer is working to fix that.

The web designer has spelled your father's name wrong.

ceptimus · #**19064** 08-25-2012, 11:36 PM

The spelling on and inside the virtual book is inconsistent. The cover and title page have Semour but the copyright notice on the next page has Seymour. :shrug:

Spacemonkey · #**19065** 08-25-2012, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course you are talking about their merit. You are positive Lessans is wrong because you give MERIT to the conventional belief on light.

I explicitly stated I was not asking you to comment on their merit, as my point was simply that this has been a critical discussion here, and you were wrong to claim otherwise. Ergo, your website forum will be shielding Lessans' ideas from such criticism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Before I move on, where am I not addressing your point? I have bent over backwards to address your point.

My point was explained in my very next words, which you quoted in your post but avoided once more: "You said that only those who see your father's ideas as valid and who are interested in spreading them will be welcome to participate on your forum. This will obviously shield his ideas from criticism by only allowing discussion amongst those who are already in agreement with his views. (Of course so far there is only one such person on the planet.) This is a smart move on your part, as you know full well that these ideas cannot withstand any kind of critical scrutiny."

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have a feeling that it is you that will have a hard time admitting that you were wrong all along. I only hope that won't stop you from carefully listening to Lessans, and if there is more need for proof, I'm game. Let's get this done so we can have a better world. That has been my only intention all along.

Do you know why you are here updating us? Because you must surely be aware by now that everyone here places you somewhere on a spectrum between deluded fundamentalist and certifiably insane. So why have you returned? And why have you been trying to restart discussion of the merit of Lessans' ideas instead of sticking to updating us on your progress?

ceptimus · #**19066** 08-25-2012, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet we managed to hit a target area of about 200 x 200 KM, while we should have missed by at least 21000 KM if Lessans was right.

Curiosity was a lot more accurate than that! The target area for the landing was an elliptical shape with dimensions roughly twelve miles long by four-and-a-half miles wide. The actual landing was only one-and-a-half miles from the centre of the target! :applaud:

davidm · #**19067** 08-26-2012, 12:08 AM

Peacegirl's Web site, with her demand that everyone read the book and listen to the audio, and agree with it all on pain of censorship, will be exactly like Sophia's Rape Island Sovereignty site: Zero participants, except for her own sock puppets, assuming she can figure out what a sock is and how to make one.

Oh, well!

naturalist.atheist · #**19068** 08-26-2012, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you know why you are here updating us? Because you must surely be aware by now that everyone here places you somewhere on a spectrum between deluded fundamentalist and certifiably insane. So why have you returned? And why have you been trying to restart discussion of the merit of Lessans' ideas instead of sticking to updating us on your progress?

She is back because her schizophrenia needed a booster shot of perceived persecution. If she only allows those in total agreement with her version of Lessans to post on her new forum, then she will need to continue to return for booster shots. She can always count on being insulted and ridiculed here.

peacegirl · #**19069** 08-26-2012, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

The spelling on and inside the virtual book is inconsistent. The cover and title page have Semour but the copyright notice on the next page has Seymour. :shrug:

Ceptimus, thank you for being my proofreader. I rushed to type his 6th book and I knew there would be mistakes, but unlike getting a book printed, I knew I could always redo any errors I found. But I didn't think there would be a mistake on the title page.

You guys are my back-ups, but not when it comes to the actual content which I believe is valid. Ceptimus, I have to give it to you; you're the best!! :wink:

peacegirl · #**19070** 08-26-2012, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl's Web site, with her demand that everyone read the book and listen to the audio, and agree with it all on pain of censorship, will be exactly like Sophia's Rape Island Sovereignty site: Zero participants, except for her own sock puppets, assuming she can figure out what a sock is and how to make one.

Oh, well!

No, that's not what I said. I will answer questions, but I believe he is right and I can't afford to waste the time to argue with people who never even read the book. If you purchase the book, then you can have membership in the forum area. But I will ban people who are nasty, ridicule, and have nothing to contribute to the conversation. That's why I am telling you up front what this forum is about. It will be a grassroots effort to bring this unprecedented knowledge to light, even if you aren't sure whether he is right about the eyes. It really doesn't matter; this knowledge can bring world peace and I'm not going to ever give up until the day I die. And if I do, then my kids will be in a position to take over this important mission.

peacegirl · #**19071** 08-26-2012, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet we managed to hit a target area of about 200 x 200 KM, while we should have missed by at least 21000 KM if Lessans was right.

Curiosity was a lot more accurate than that! The target area for the landing was an elliptical shape with dimensions roughly twelve miles long by four-and-a-half miles wide. The actual landing was only one-and-a-half miles from the centre of the target! :applaud:

Show me the math. Show me that every time a target is reached, it is due to calculating the light/time differential. Even then, it would have to be proven that this was not a correction on the part of an original formula gone wrong.

LadyShea · #**19072** 08-26-2012, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope that, in the name of science, more empirical testing can be done. I can't do this myself, so I am depending scientists to take this knowledge seriously.

Of course you can test Lessans' claim for yourself. It's a very simple experiment, and will cost less than $100.00 in materials.

Go to Wal-Mart or some such place and buy a cheap astronomical telescope or a good pair of binoculars, and a stopwatch.

Take the telescope outside on a clear night when Earth and Jupiter are at their closest and point it at Jupiter. If you don't like Jupiter, you could use Saturn as your test-planet. If you invest in a better telescope, you could use Uranus or even Neptune. Record the times that the planet's moons are eclipsed by the planet.

Repeat the experiment exactly six months later, when the separation between Earth and your target planet is about 186,000,000 miles greater. See if the change in distance affects when we see the moons being eclipsed.

If we see in "real time," the change in distance won't have any effect on when we see the moons being eclipsed. If we don't see in "real time," the finite speed of light will impose a 17-minute difference.

Be sure to report your results. You have no excuses; any reasonably intelligent third-grader could perform the experiment and understand the results.

Why wouldn't we see a change in distance six months later? Obviously, there has been a change but to conclude that we see the moons of Jupiter's in delayed time is not conclusive. It feels airtight but it is circumstantial. I don't want to get into this again because it's not even his most important discovery, yet no one will let go of this topic even for a second.

Nah, of course you don't want to get into it again, but sure enough, every time you post here, it will be brought up and your nose will be rubbed in it, in reality.

Why wouldn't we see a change in distance six months later? :doh:

I don't know, you tell us. It's your (and Lessan's) theory. Here, I'll explain for you: if we saw in real time, as Lessans claimed, we could not discern a change in distance via seeing, because real-time seeing means, by definition, that we see everything in the universe at once! The fact that we must wait longer to see something that has moved farther from us, disproves real-time seeing by the very definition of real-time seeing. Doh!

:derpoland:

It does not David. Obviously, we have to wait longer to see something that is farther away because it takes time for the object (not the light) to enter our visual field. Time is not erased just because we see reality in the present.

How do objects move into our visual field unless everything in the Universe is moving towards us?

LadyShea · #**19073** 08-26-2012, 01:46 PM

Here. There are 500K lines of code, including the math, how are we supposed to show it to you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We provided you with NASA's math toolkit, used by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for all its missions and discussed the barycenter and you ignored it because you didn't understand it. Here it is again to ignore

spkezp_c

Quote:

"LT+S" Correct for one-way light time and
stellar aberration using a Newtonian
formulation. This option modifies the
position obtained with the "LT" option
to account for the observer's velocity
relative to the solar system
barycenter. The result is the apparent
position of the target---the position
as seen by the observer.

"CN" Converged Newtonian light time
correction. In solving the light time
equation, the "CN" correction iterates
until the solution converges (three
iterations on all supported platforms).

The "CN" correction typically does not
substantially improve accuracy because
the errors made by ignoring
relativistic effects may be larger than
the improvement afforded by obtaining
convergence of the light time solution.
The "CN" correction computation also
requires a significantly greater number
of CPU cycles than does the
one-iteration light time correction.

Mars "Curiosity" Rover Landing: August 2012 ...

peacegirl · #**19074** 08-26-2012, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course you are talking about their merit. You are positive Lessans is wrong because you give MERIT to the conventional belief on light.

I explicitly stated I was not asking you to comment on their merit, as my point was simply that this has been a critical discussion here, and you were wrong to claim otherwise. Ergo, your website forum will be shielding Lessans' ideas from such criticism.

People can start their own discussions, but not on my site. My site is specifically to spread this knowledge, regardless of who agrees or does not agree with his claims. If I listened to every naysayer, this knowledge would never be brought to light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Before I move on, where am I not addressing your point? I have bent over backwards to address your point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

My point was explained in my very next words, which you quoted in your post but avoided once more: "You said that only those who see your father's ideas as valid and who are interested in spreading them will be welcome to participate on your forum. This will obviously shield his ideas from criticism by only allowing discussion amongst those who are already in agreement with his views. (Of course so far there is only one such person on the planet.) This is a smart move on your part, as you know full well that these ideas cannot withstand any kind of critical scrutiny."

It will shield me from having to listen to the constant criticisms of people who resent this man, even when their criticisms are not legitimate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have a feeling that it is you that will have a hard time admitting that you were wrong all along. I only hope that won't stop you from carefully listening to Lessans, and if there is more need for proof, I'm game. Let's get this done so we can have a better world. That has been my only intention all along.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you know why you are here updating us? Because you must surely be aware by now that everyone here places you somewhere on a spectrum between deluded fundamentalist and certifiably insane. So why have you returned? And why have you been trying to restart discussion of the merit of Lessans' ideas instead of sticking to updating us on your progress?

I am doing just that; sticking to updating you on my progress. As I said, I cannot worry about the people who believe I am deluded, or that my father is wrong. I have to focus on the goal, which is to bring this knowledge to light, and I won't be swayed by a few nihilists.

peacegirl · #**19075** 08-26-2012, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope that, in the name of science, more empirical testing can be done. I can't do this myself, so I am depending scientists to take this knowledge seriously.

Of course you can test Lessans' claim for yourself. It's a very simple experiment, and will cost less than $100.00 in materials.

Go to Wal-Mart or some such place and buy a cheap astronomical telescope or a good pair of binoculars, and a stopwatch.

Take the telescope outside on a clear night when Earth and Jupiter are at their closest and point it at Jupiter. If you don't like Jupiter, you could use Saturn as your test-planet. If you invest in a better telescope, you could use Uranus or even Neptune. Record the times that the planet's moons are eclipsed by the planet.

Repeat the experiment exactly six months later, when the separation between Earth and your target planet is about 186,000,000 miles greater. See if the change in distance affects when we see the moons being eclipsed.

If we see in "real time," the change in distance won't have any effect on when we see the moons being eclipsed. If we don't see in "real time," the finite speed of light will impose a 17-minute difference.

Be sure to report your results. You have no excuses; any reasonably intelligent third-grader could perform the experiment and understand the results.

Why wouldn't we see a change in distance six months later? Obviously, there has been a change but to conclude that we see the moons of Jupiter's in delayed time is not conclusive. It feels airtight but it is circumstantial. I don't want to get into this again because it's not even his most important discovery, yet no one will let go of this topic even for a second.

Nah, of course you don't want to get into it again, but sure enough, every time you post here, it will be brought up and your nose will be rubbed in it, in reality.

Why wouldn't we see a change in distance six months later? :doh:

I don't know, you tell us. It's your (and Lessan's) theory. Here, I'll explain for you: if we saw in real time, as Lessans claimed, we could not discern a change in distance via seeing, because real-time seeing means, by definition, that we see everything in the universe at once! The fact that we must wait longer to see something that has moved farther from us, disproves real-time seeing by the very definition of real-time seeing. Doh!

:derpoland:

It does not David. Obviously, we have to wait longer to see something that is farther away because it takes time for the object (not the light) to enter our visual field. Time is not erased just because we see reality in the present.

How do objects move into our visual field unless everything in the Universe is moving towards us?

Everything in the Universe that has momentum is moving, which takes time, but that does not mean that light strikes our eyes and sends images of material substance that existed in the past to our brains.