A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There he goes again with his odd notions of what is proof. How is perspective supposed to be proof that sight is instant?

In that tract he was extending his observations; he wasn't trying to prove anything.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And how do we explain the impossible things that are required to be true if sight is instant, with timed neutrinos, and planets speeding up and slowing down depending on how far away from earth they are?

I'm not arguing that neutrinos don't exist or that they are not an early warning sign of a Supernova. And I'm not arguing that light is not finite and doesn't travel 186,000 miles a second. What I am arguing against is that what we see when it comes to objects in the real world (mass) is in delayed time because the purpose of light is to reveal the world, not bring the world to our brain for interpretation.

As far as planets speeding up and slowing down, I don't believe there's anything magical going on. I don't know what the explanation is, and I'm okay with admitting that. All I can tell you is that Lessans' observations were spot on. When his observations are confirmed valid through empirical testing, it will be time enough to figure out what is going on with the moons of Jupiter.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

p. 116 The explanation as to
why the sun looks to be the size of the moon — although much larger
— is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it
would look like a star to someone living on a planet the distance of
Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone
looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time because the
images are not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light,
therefore it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant
stars.

Originally Posted by koan

Thing 1: You should show your work some respect by reformatting it when you quote from the book. It is an eyesore to keep all the hard returns. You'll note that when I've quoted from it I make it look proper, like this:

If you changed your bedside manner, maybe I'd take take your advice, but right now I'm not interested in anything you have to say. You're very cutting and I don't trust you with a ten foot pole. You're just a big show off.

Originally Posted by koan

I realize you've said you don't care about etiquette to your reader but you should think of it as etiquette towards your father's work. You make it look bad when you do shit formatting.

Thing 2: The passage from the book says "This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time" and it astounds me that a rational person could come to that conclusion. What it proves is that distance affects perspective. It helped artists understand how to draw in three dimensions. It has nothing to do with speed of light or time. Why on earth do you think it means something about time? I'll tell you a test you can set up and I'll tell you one of the variables that will fuck with your results.

Of course distance affects perspective, and it astounds me that a rational person could come to the conclusion that this discussion is not relevant because artists see things in a different way.

Originally Posted by koan

Have someone take a light as far away as your eye can see it. Synchronize your watches to the millisecond. Have someone at each end record both the second the light is turned on and when you hit a buzzer the moment you see the light turn on. According to you there should only be a delay matching a prerecorded time it takes you to hit the buzzer.

What prerecorded time are you talking about? That's not even true. You're confusing light and mass. Light is finite, therefore when a person sees the light turned on it will differ at different locations.

Originally Posted by koan

The variable that will cause you problems is that, on top of the speed of light, the brain does not react to visual stimulus as fast as it reacts to sound. So it will be impossible for you to hit the buzzer the moment the light turns on. How do you explain that the brain reacts slower to sight than to sound when the brain is, according to you, the source of the sight?

The brain has to register that the light was turned on, just like it has to register anything that it sees and then interprets. Then there is a reaction time to hitting the buzzer, which is different for different people. Where in the world does this negates his claims? You're just grasping at anything you can and it's making you look desperate.

[But]

Originally Posted by Dragar

You've heard my objections to Many Worlds (or at least the popular version) already. I'm curious as to what brought about the change? And what your new interpretation of quantum mechanics is?

You should understand what change is. Do you think the interpretation is new?

[peacegirl]

It does not rule his claim out. We can observe a planet in real time, but we still have to account for the planet's movement and its distance in order for probes to accurately reach their destination. It's not surprising to me that we don't aim at the place we see the planet because we have to account for these other factors.

And he didn't have any misconceptions about dog and infant sight.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is obviously not the point I was making. The point is we aim our probes to hit a planet where we do not see the planet at the moment the probe hits... and yet we do hit it every time. We aim it where we know we won't see it because we take the time delay into account. And guess what? It works. Every time.

I would really love to see this time/light calculation that is factored in that, without it, we would miss the planet entirely.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As for his ideas about infant sight and dog sight, the scientific consensus is that he was wrong about both of them.

Scientific concensus is not proof. It only means a bunch of people agree. Many years ago there was a concensus between scientists that people got pregnant from a snake bite. Do you see why consensus doesn't mean much and can actually harm scientific investigation that may take a different turn? All concensus is is just a bunch of opinions that are strung together to make something appear factual.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Neither of these things address the truly bizarre things that are required to be happening in order for sight to be instant - so bizarre that the only rational conclusion is to say sight is in fact not instant at all.

It's only bizarre because you're not use to this line of thought. One day it will be bizarre to think that we believed in delayed vision.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by But

You should understand what change is. Do you think the interpretation is new?

You've rather lost me here.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In that tract he was extending his observations; he wasn't trying to prove anything.

Then why did he say "This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time" ?

Strange wording to use for not trying to prove anything.

[LadyShea]

I would really love to see this time/light calculation that is factored in that, without it, we would miss the planet entirely.

Are you a rocket scientist? Do you think if you were shown the pages and pages of calculations NASA uses you could make sense of it?

I showed you the NASA pages for math and where the light speed delay is included in all of their calculations. You've ignored it every time...why?

spkezr
indicates the aberration corrections to be applied
to the state of the target body to account for one-way
light time and stellar aberration. See the discussion
in the Particulars section for recommendations on
how to choose aberration corrections.

[Vivisectus]

I would really love to see this time/light calculation that is factored in that, without it, we would miss the planet entirely.

I am pretty sure I explained this one before.

We can make a rough estimate that will tell you by how much we would miss, let us say Io, if we fired a probe at where we would expect to find it if sight was instant. It is quite a bit, since Jupiter moves at a brisk 47,002 km/h and is between 6.4 and 4.2 AU away from us.

Now of course Jupiter does not move in a straight line, and Io orbits it at a different speed again, so we will only get a very rough estimation out of this. But if we consider that at its closest, light from Jupiter takes about 33 minutes to reach us, that would mean the difference is roughly 23000 km.

At its farthest, the difference would be more like 40.000 km.

Io, which we have sent probes skimming past, has a radius of about 3600 km.

If sight were instant, we should be between 23000 and 40000 KM off target when we try to skim a probe past Io.

[

quote="Vivisectus"]As for his ideas about infant sight and dog sight, the scientific consensus is that he was wrong about both of them.

Scientific concensus is not proof. It only means a bunch of people agree. Many years ago there was a concensus between scientists that people got pregnant from a snake bite. Do you see why consensus doesn't mean much and can actually harm scientific investigation that may take a different turn? All concensus is is just a bunch of opinions that are strung together to make something appear factual.[/QUOTE]

As I pointed out, no matter what your stance is on the matter of infant and dog sight, it is compatible with the accepted theory of vision. That said, the current consensus is that the book is dead wrong about both, and this is supported by pretty strong evidence. I realize you reject that evidence, but the facts remain the same.

It's only bizarre because you're not use to this line of thought. One day it will be bizarre to think that we believed in delayed vision.

No, the bizarre conclusions follow from using your line of thought. That is how you can see that it is fundamentally incorrect: impossible things must be true, in order for instant sight to be true.

If Io is exactly where we see it, then something must be speeding up and slowing down it's orbit somehow. Also something must have steered the probes we sent past it JUST ENOUGH to

If a supernova happens at the same time as we see it, then it must have somehow sent waves of neutrinos ahead millions of years ago... timed in such a way that they arrive here on earth at the exact right time to make it look to us like there is a delay in sight.

Both mysterious phenomena are somehow focused on earth, as the effect created is to make it seem as if there is a delay in sight here on earth caused by the speed of light.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're confusing light and mass. Light is finite, therefore when a person sees the light turned on it will differ at different locations.

What does that mean? When we see the Sun we see light it is emitting in the visible spectrum, not its mass. If we could see mass that was not emitting or reflecting light, we could easily see black holes, but we can't see black holes. We can only detect them indirectly.

If the Sun was only emitting gamma rays for example, we would not be able to see the Sun with our eyes at all, even it had the same mass.

[Vivisectus]

As far as planets speeding up and slowing down, I don't believe there's anything magical going on. I don't know what the explanation is, and I'm okay with admitting that. All I can tell you is that Lessans' observations were spot on. When his observations are confirmed valid through empirical testing, it will be time enough to figure out what is going on with the moons of Jupiter.

Which is why your belief in this book is irrational: you simply hold to the belief it is "spot on" despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your denouncement of this discovery will not change the coming of the Golden Age which was predicted many centuries ago.

Predicted where and by whom?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Many years ago there was a concensus between scientists that people got pregnant from a snake bite

There was? When? Who were these scientists?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you a rocket scientist? Do you think if you were shown the pages and pages of calculations NASA uses you could make sense of it?

I showed you the NASA pages for math and where the light speed delay is included in all of their calculations. You've ignored it every time...why?

That does not explain anything. It's all gobbledegook as far as I'm concerned. If you believe these googled hits, go for it. I'm not telling you what to believe.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Many years ago there was a concensus between scientists that people got pregnant from a snake bite.

Liar. There has never been any such scientific consensus.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. I double-dog dare you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Which is why your belief in this book is irrational: you simply hold to the belief it is "spot on" despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Vivisectus, I'm trying to convey to you that all of your refutations don't hold any weight whatsoever. You are trying, just like Spacemonkey, to discredit Lessans. You cannot because there is something to his claims. You will never accept his claims until someone else comes along of importance and verifies that he is right. Until then, you will be angry, call him names, hate him, and disrespect me because of it. What am I to do, give up? No way.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That does not explain anything. It's all gobbledegook as far as I'm concerned. If you believe these googled hits, go for it. I'm not telling you what to believe.

That's a page from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Pretty sure that they know what math they themselves use for missions.

As predicted, you can't even understand it, so why would you ask for calculations you can't comprehend?

SPKEZR is the most powerful of the SPK readers. It determines the apparent, true, or geometric state of one body (the target) as seen by a second body (the observer) relative to a user specified reference frame.

CALL SPKEZR ( , , ,
. , ,
. STATE, LT ) { Easier state }

The subroutine accepts five inputs---target body, epoch, reference frame, aberration correction type, and observing body---and returns two outputs---state of the target body as seen from the observing body, and one-way light-time from the target body to the observing body.

The target body, observing body and frame are identified by strings that contain the names of these items. For example, to determine the state of Triton as seen from the Voyager-2 spacecraft relative to the J2000 reference frame

CALL SPKEZR ( 'TRITON', ET, 'J2000', ABERR,
. 'VOYAGER-2', STATE, LT ) { Easier state }

By definition, the ephemerides in SPK files are continuous: the user can obtain states at any epoch within the interval of coverage. Epochs are always specified in ephemeris seconds past the epoch of the J2000 reference system (Julian Ephemeris Date 2451545.0 ) For example, to determine the state of Triton as seen from Voyager-2 at Julian Ephemeris Date 2447751.8293,

ET = ( 2447751.8293D0 - J2000() ) * SPD()

CALL SPKEZR ( 'TRITON', ET, 'J2000', ,
. 'VOYAGER-2', STATE, LT ) { Easier state }

where the function J2000 returns the epoch of the J2000 frame (Julian Ephemeris Date 2451545.0) and the function SPD returns the number of seconds per Julian day (86400.0).

The ephemeris data in an SPK file may be referenced to a number of different reference frames. States returned by SPKEZR do not have to be referenced to any of these ``native'' frames. The user can specify that states are to be returned in any of the frames recognized by the frame subsystem. For example, to determine the state of Triton as seen from Voyager-2, referenced to the J2000 ecliptic reference frame,

CALL SPKEZR ( 'TRITON', ET, 'ECLIPJ2000', ABERR,
. 'VOYAGER-2', STATE, LT ) { Easier state }

SPKEZR returns apparent, true, or geometric states depending on the value of the aberration correction type flag ABERR.

Apparent states are corrected for planetary aberration, which is the composite of the apparent angular displacement produced by motion of the observer (stellar aberration) and the actual motion of the target body (correction for light-time). True states are corrected for light-time only. Geometric states are uncorrected.

Instead of using the potentially confusing terms `true' and `geometric' to specify the type of state to be returned, SPKEZR requires the specific corrections to be named. To compute apparent states, specify correction for both light-time and stellar aberration: `LT+S'. To compute true states, specify correction for light-time only: `LT'. To compute geometric states, specify no correction: `NONE'.

In all cases, the one-way light-time from the target to the observer is returned along with the state.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then why did he say "This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time" ?

Strange wording to use for not trying to prove anything.

Not really, if you understand his observations and reasoning therefrom. You obviously understood none of those things.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you understand it LadyShea, or are you trusting that they got it right? Don't make yourself bigger than you are because you will look ignorant.

What you just posted does not explain anything. It's all gobbledegook as far as I'm concerned. If you believe these googled hits, go for it. I'm not telling you what to believe.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's a page from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Pretty sure that they know what math they themselves use for missions.

As predicted, you can't even understand it, so why would you ask for calculations you can't comprehend?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

SPKEZR is the most powerful of the SPK readers. It determines the apparent, true, or geometric state of one body (the target) as seen by a second body (the observer) relative to a user specified reference frame.

CALL SPKEZR ( <targ>, <et>, <frame>,
. <aberr>, <obs>,
. STATE, LT ) { Easier state }

The subroutine accepts five inputs---target body, epoch, reference frame, aberration correction type, and observing body---and returns two outputs---state of the target body as seen from the observing body, and one-way light-time from the target body to the observing body.

The target body, observing body and frame are identified by strings that contain the names of these items. For example, to determine the state of Triton as seen from the Voyager-2 spacecraft relative to the J2000 reference frame

CALL SPKEZR ( 'TRITON', ET, 'J2000', ABERR,
. 'VOYAGER-2', STATE, LT ) { Easier state }

By definition, the ephemerides in SPK files are continuous: the user can obtain states at any epoch within the interval of coverage. Epochs are always specified in ephemeris seconds past the epoch of the J2000 reference system (Julian Ephemeris Date 2451545.0 ) For example, to determine the state of Triton as seen from Voyager-2 at Julian Ephemeris Date 2447751.8293,

ET = ( 2447751.8293D0 - J2000() ) * SPD()

CALL SPKEZR ( 'TRITON', ET, 'J2000', <aberr>,
. 'VOYAGER-2', STATE, LT ) { Easier state }

where the function J2000 returns the epoch of the J2000 frame (Julian Ephemeris Date 2451545.0) and the function SPD returns the number of seconds per Julian day (86400.0).

The ephemeris data in an SPK file may be referenced to a number of different reference frames. States returned by SPKEZR do not have to be referenced to any of these ``native'' frames. The user can specify that states are to be returned in any of the frames recognized by the frame subsystem. For example, to determine the state of Triton as seen from Voyager-2, referenced to the J2000 ecliptic reference frame,

CALL SPKEZR ( 'TRITON', ET, 'ECLIPJ2000', ABERR,
. 'VOYAGER-2', STATE, LT ) { Easier state }

SPKEZR returns apparent, true, or geometric states depending on the value of the aberration correction type flag ABERR.

Apparent states are corrected for planetary aberration, which is the composite of the apparent angular displacement produced by motion of the observer (stellar aberration) and the actual motion of the target body (correction for light-time). True states are corrected for light-time only. Geometric states are uncorrected.

Instead of using the potentially confusing terms `true' and `geometric' to specify the type of state to be returned, SPKEZR requires the specific corrections to be named. To compute apparent states, specify correction for both light-time and stellar aberration: `LT+S'. To compute true states, specify correction for light-time only: `LT'. To compute geometric states, specify no correction: `NONE'.

In all cases, the one-way light-time from the target to the observer is returned along with the state.

Since you're so smart, can you translate this instead of just copy/pasting? I don't believe so. You're accusing me of doing the same exact thing you are doing. That's not proof LadyShea unless you can explain it. You are trying so hard to make it look technical and therefore correct, but the truth is you don't even know what they're saying. As far as I'm concerned it's a bunch of gobbledegook. All it says is that it does certain things, and you accept it at face value because you want to believe science is right. Where's the dam proof? Ironically, it is YOU who doesn't get it. You are trusting Nasa to have answers that they have not given you. You are a patsy.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, that's not proof. You are trying so hard to make it look technological, but the truth is it's not. Where is the actual proof, not a bunch of gobbledegook? All it says is that it does certain things, and you accept it at face value. Where's the dam proof? Ironically, it is YOU who doesn't get it. You are trusting Nasa to have answers that they have not given you. You are a patsy.

That is instructions for scientists to locate a target using NASA's math software. Yes, it is technological because we are discussing calculations for NASA, you see. I trust NASA to land space probes on Mars, because they have done so 3 times....using this math program and calculations. I trust NASA to get probes to the outer reaches of the solar system without crashing into planets because they have actually done so...using these calculations. That's the proof.

It looks like gobbledygook to most of us, because we are not rocket scientists. What on Earth am I a patsy for...do you know what a patsy even is?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, I'm trying to convey to you that all of your refutations don't hold any weight whatsoever. You are trying, just like Spacemonkey, to discredit Lessans. You cannot because there is something to his claims. You will never accept his claims until someone else comes along of importance and verifies that he is right. Until then, you will be angry, call him names, hate him, and disrespect me because of it. What am I to do, give up? No way.

I do not think I could possibly discredit your father. In order for me to do so he would have to have some credibility in the first place. I cannot take away what never existed in the first place.

By keeping something as patently idiotic as instant sight in the book, you make sure no-one will ever think of him as anything but a dim-witted eccentric. I realize you do not want to hear it, but I absolutely guarantee no-one will ever read that part and take him seriously. It is too obviously wrong and shows just how little he understood even the most basic concepts of science.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not really, if you understand his observations and reasoning therefrom. You obviously understood none of those things.

Why did he use the words "This proves conclusively...." if he was not trying to prove anything?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Liar. There has never been any such scientific consensus.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. I double-dog dare you.

I don't care what you think. I don't care about your dares either. There was a time that people believed babies were born from a snake bite. If you don't believe me, research it. I'm not going to work any harder than you. This was the sign of the times. Why are you so resistant to the point that you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and you call yourself a scientific investigator?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why did he use the words "This proves conclusively...." if he was not trying to prove anything?

That came from an earlier observation, not from the extension that you have mistaken as proof.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I do not think I could possibly discredit your father. In order for me to do so he would have to have some credibility in the first place. I cannot take away what never existed in the first place.

By keeping something as patently idiotic as instant sight in the book, you make sure no-one will ever think of him as anything but a dim-witted eccentric. I realize you do not want to hear it, but I absolutely guarantee no-one will ever read that part and take him seriously. It is too obviously wrong and shows just how little he understood even the most basic concepts of science.

No Vivisectus. You have built up a lot of resentment for no reason. You are the one that has the problem, not him. You will find any reason you can to discredit him. This started from day one because you didn't like his claims, so you tried to find reasons to hate him. You are not the end all of truth. Only God knows the truth and in spite of all your resistance, it doesn't change the timetable of when this knowledge will be brought to light. You have no say in this whatsoever.

[ceptimus]

It's typical peacegirl/Lessans reverse-speak.

This proves conclusively that...: this has nothing to do with my assertion that...

These are astute observations: these are uninformed opinions.

It is a mathematical certainty that...: here follows my opinion that has nothing to do with mathematics...

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

It's typical peacegirl/Lessans reverse-speak.

This proves conclusively that...: this has nothing to do with my assertion that...

These are astute observations: these are uninformed opinions.

It is a mathematical certainty that...: here follows my opinion that has nothing to do with mathematics...

Proof that NASA corrects for light time delays.....not proof at all, just gobbledygook