“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[peacegirl]

People have read the stuff about light and sight and it’s wrong, peacegirl. I doubt anyone will waste anymore time yet again explaining why.

It isn't wrong just because you say it is.

It’s not because I say it is wrong, but because the evidence shows that is wrong. See bilby’s post just above, for example.

He didn't prove anything. He just got confused about the thought experiment and believed that light has to arrive for 8.5 minutes for sunrise to occur, hence there would be a contradiction. But there is no contradiction.

No, peacegirl. He tested your author’s claim that we would see the sun immediately, but nothing else for 8.5 minutes. Sunrise disproves the author’s claim.

It does not, not at all.

Of course it does. Stop pretending to be be obtuse.

Your model predicts that when the sun comes up, we would see it in the sky for 8.5 minutes before the ground lights up.

Instead, we see the sun rise, and the ground light up, at the same time.

Your fable is finished.

No it isn't Pood. We would see daybreak before we would see the Sun coming over the horizon [in real time.] In fact, we wouldn't see anything at all if our surroundings were not reflecting the light that the Sun was emitting.

 

[peacegirl]

cont... Daybreak, also known as dawn, is the time in the morning when the sun begins to rise and light starts to appear in the sky. It marks the transition from night to day and is characterized by the gradual increase in light as the sun approaches the horizon. askfilo.com

Whether we see in real time or delayed time would not change what we see. The Sun would come over the horizon at exactly the same time regardless of which version of sight is true. I cannot repeat this enough. Nothing that you believe disproves his claim actually does that.

 

[bilby]

Well, we can do another simple experiment to test the same hypothesis. I call it "The Human Sundial Experiment".

Here's how it works:

At any time during the day, when the sun is unobscured by cloud and shadows are cast, we can see that the Sun appears to move across the sky at roughly four times its own diameter every eight minutes. The shadows it casts "move" across the ground at the same angular velocity. That's how a sundial works - a sundial shows how the Sun appears to move across the sky at a steady rate that matches the rotation of the Earth.

If you stand near a post, building or other structure, theres a spot you can be in where Sun can be 'hidden' behind that object, so that you can't see it. Lets pick a telegraph or power pole (you could use a tree or a shed, or whatever, if you prefer, as long as it's tall enough and thin enough that there's somewhere to stand where the Sun is only just hidden behind the pole).

Pick a spot to stand, facing the Sun, far enough back so that the Sun is only just blocked by the pole - so that if you move even the tiniest bit to either side, you will see the edge of the Sun.

Now, the ground at your feet is illuminated on either side by sunlight that left the Sun eight and a half minutes ago. The shadow is pointing directly at where the Sun was when that light left the Sun - if it wasn't, the shadow wouldn't be where it is*.

But the Sun has moved since that light left it. It is eight and a half minutes, or four solar diameters, further along its apparent path across the sky than it was when it sent out that light.

So, if we see the Sun instantly, with no delay, then we should see it, four 'pole widths' to one side of the pole, while we are standing in the shadow; And when we stand so that the Sun is exactly blocked by the pole, we should be in sunlight, with the shadow falling off to one side, four times it's own width counter-clockwise from where we are standing.

That's an unavoidable result, IF we see the Sun instantly, but see the light reflect off the ground only after that eight and a half minute delay. The spot where the Sun is completely obscured from view should, according to your hypothesis, be outside the shadow cast by the post.

This is an observation that is directly implied by your hypothesis. If you are right, then the above is exactly what we must see. It's also not what we actually observe, if and when we do the experiment. Don't take my word for it - do the experiment for yourself. Anyone can, on any sunny day.






*The Human Sundial Experiment is functionally much the same as the Sunrise Experiment; In the latter, we used the Earth itself to cast the shadow, but in this new experiment, we use something that's small enough so that the Sun is only just obscured from our vantage point. The benefit of this is that a telegraph pole doesn't have an atmosphere to scatter light, so we aren't at risk of being confused by the pre-dawn brightness of the sky.

 

[pood]

.

cont... Daybreak, also known as dawn, is the time in the morning when the sun begins to rise and light starts to appear in the sky. It marks the transition from night to day and is characterized by the gradual increase in light as the sun approaches the horizon. askfilo.com

Whether we see in real time or delayed time would not change what we see. The Sun would come over the horizon at exactly the same time regardless of which version of sight is true. I cannot repeat this enough. Nothing that you believe disproves his claim actually does that.

Peacegirl, do you really think people here don’t know what daybreak means?

You stated we see the sun instantly, with no time delay.

You also stated we would have to wait 8.5 minutes for the light to arrive to see our surroundings.

As noted, If that were true, then when the sun rose, the ground would remain dark for 8.5 minutes before lighting up.

We do not observe that.

Hence, your fable is falsified.

 

[pood]

BTW, the above is called “science.” The only part of science your writer did is to propose a hypothesis. Then science stepped in and falsified it.

 

[peacegirl]

Well, we can do another simple experiment to test the same hypothesis. I call it "The Human Sundial Experiment".

Here's how it works:

At any time during the day, when the sun is unobscured by cloud and shadows are cast, we can see that the Sun appears to move across the sky at roughly four times its own diameter every eight minutes. The shadows it casts "move" across the ground at the same angular velocity. That's how a sundial works - a sundial shows how the Sun appears to move across the sky at a steady rate that matches the rotation of the Earth.

If you stand near a post, building or other structure, theres a spot you can be in where Sun can be 'hidden' behind that object, so that you can't see it. Lets pick a telegraph or power pole (you could use a tree or a shed, or whatever, if you prefer, as long as it's tall enough and thin enough that there's somewhere to stand where the Sun is only just hidden behind the pole).

Pick a spot to stand, facing the Sun, far enough back so that the Sun is only just blocked by the pole - so that if you move even the tiniest bit to either side, you will see the edge of the Sun.

Now, the ground at your feet is illuminated on either side by sunlight that left the Sun eight and a half minutes ago. The shadow is pointing directly at where the Sun was when that light left the Sun - if it wasn't, the shadow wouldn't be where it is*.

But the Sun has moved since that light left it. It is eight and a half minutes, or four solar diameters, further along its apparent path across the sky than it was when it sent out that light.

So, if we see the Sun instantly, with no delay, then we should see it, four 'pole widths' to one side of the pole, while we are standing in the shadow; And when we stand so that the Sun is exactly blocked by the pole, we should be in sunlight, with the shadow falling off to one side, four times it's own width counter-clockwise from where we are standing.

That's an unavoidable result, IF we see the Sun instantly, but see the light reflect off the ground only after that eight and a half minute delay. The spot where the Sun is completely obscured from view should, according to your hypothesis, be outside the shadow cast by the post.

This is an observation that is directly implied by your hypothesis. If you are right, then the above is exactly what we must see. It's also not what we actually observe, if and when we do the experiment. Don't take my word for it - do the experiment for yourself. Anyone can, on any sunny day.






*The Human Sundial Experiment is functionally much the same as the Sunrise Experiment; In the latter, we used the Earth itself to cast the shadow, but in this new experiment, we use something that's small enough so that the Sun is only just obscured from our vantage point. The benefit of this is that a telegraph pole doesn't have an atmosphere to scatter light, so we aren't at risk of being confused by the pre-dawn brightness of the sky.

I am trying to understand sundials and how they work. I'm not in the position to agree or disagree at this point.

The reason we see a shadow from the Sun using a sundial and see the Sun eight minutes later is due to the Earth's rotation and the Sun's apparent motion across the sky. The sundial's gnomon casts a shadow that moves across a marked surface, indicating the time of day. The shadow's position changes throughout the day, aligning with different hour lines on the dial plate. This movement of the shadow is a result of the Earth's rotation, which causes the Sun to appear to move across the sky from east to west. The angle of the gnomon must be aligned with the Earth's axis of rotation and point toward the North Star (Polaris) in the Northern Hemisphere for maximum accuracy. The sundial's hour lines are spaced to represent each hour of daylight, allowing one to read the time by noting where the shadow falls on the marked lines. The shadow's position changes throughout the day, indicating the time of day, and the sundial's design ensures that the shadow moves at a constant rate throughout the day, regardless of the season.

The Slender Wrist


https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=ff32...yd3Jpc3QuY29tL2hvdy1zdW5kaWFsLXdvcmtzLw&ntb=1

 

[peacegirl]

.

cont... Daybreak, also known as dawn, is the time in the morning when the sun begins to rise and light starts to appear in the sky. It marks the transition from night to day and is characterized by the gradual increase in light as the sun approaches the horizon. askfilo.com

Whether we see in real time or delayed time would not change what we see. The Sun would come over the horizon at exactly the same time regardless of which version of sight is true. I cannot repeat this enough. Nothing that you believe disproves his claim actually does that.

Peacegirl, do you really think people here don’t know what daybreak means?

You stated we see the sun instantly, with no time delay.

You also stated we would have to wait 8.5 minutes for the light to arrive to see our surroundings.

As noted, If that were true, then when the sun rose, the ground would remain dark for 8.5 minutes before lighting up.

We do not observe that.

Hence, your fable is falsified.

I already told you that the light from the Sun is already here; it's just on the other side as the earth spins on its axis. It doesn't take another 8.5 minutes for the light to arrive to see our surroundings. This was just his way of explaining efferent vision. It was hypothetical.

 

[DBT]

.

cont... Daybreak, also known as dawn, is the time in the morning when the sun begins to rise and light starts to appear in the sky. It marks the transition from night to day and is characterized by the gradual increase in light as the sun approaches the horizon. askfilo.com

Whether we see in real time or delayed time would not change what we see. The Sun would come over the horizon at exactly the same time regardless of which version of sight is true. I cannot repeat this enough. Nothing that you believe disproves his claim actually does that.

Peacegirl, do you really think people here don’t know what daybreak means?

You stated we see the sun instantly, with no time delay.

You also stated we would have to wait 8.5 minutes for the light to arrive to see our surroundings.

As noted, If that were true, then when the sun rose, the ground would remain dark for 8.5 minutes before lighting up.

We do not observe that.

Hence, your fable is falsified.

I already told you that the light from the Sun is already here; it's just on the other side as the earth spins on its axis. It doesn't take another 8.5 minutes for the light to arrive to see our surroundings. This was just his way of explaining efferent vision. It was hypothetical.

As long as the sun shines, it's light is always here, just that the light we see right now left the sun eight minutes ago.

 

[peacegirl]

.

cont... Daybreak, also known as dawn, is the time in the morning when the sun begins to rise and light starts to appear in the sky. It marks the transition from night to day and is characterized by the gradual increase in light as the sun approaches the horizon. askfilo.com

Whether we see in real time or delayed time would not change what we see. The Sun would come over the horizon at exactly the same time regardless of which version of sight is true. I cannot repeat this enough. Nothing that you believe disproves his claim actually does that.

Peacegirl, do you really think people here don’t know what daybreak means?

You stated we see the sun instantly, with no time delay.

You also stated we would have to wait 8.5 minutes for the light to arrive to see our surroundings.

As noted, If that were true, then when the sun rose, the ground would remain dark for 8.5 minutes before lighting up.

We do not observe that.

Hence, your fable is falsified.

I already told you that the light from the Sun is already here; it's just on the other side as the earth spins on its axis. It doesn't take another 8.5 minutes for the light to arrive to see our surroundings. This was just his way of explaining efferent vision. It was hypothetical.

As long as the sun shines, its light is always here, just that the light we see right now left the sun eight minutes ago.

The photons are constantly being replaced but that does not mean we see the Sun in delayed time. The sundial works because the Sun casts a shadow depending on the rotation of the Earth, which allows the time of day to be approximated. In 8.5 minutes, the dial would have moved two degrees. There is nothing here that tells us we are seeing in delayed time.

 

[bilby]

.

cont... Daybreak, also known as dawn, is the time in the morning when the sun begins to rise and light starts to appear in the sky. It marks the transition from night to day and is characterized by the gradual increase in light as the sun approaches the horizon. askfilo.com

Whether we see in real time or delayed time would not change what we see. The Sun would come over the horizon at exactly the same time regardless of which version of sight is true. I cannot repeat this enough. Nothing that you believe disproves his claim actually does that.

Peacegirl, do you really think people here don’t know what daybreak means?

You stated we see the sun instantly, with no time delay.

You also stated we would have to wait 8.5 minutes for the light to arrive to see our surroundings.

As noted, If that were true, then when the sun rose, the ground would remain dark for 8.5 minutes before lighting up.

We do not observe that.

Hence, your fable is falsified.

I already told you that the light from the Sun is already here; it's just on the other side as the earth spins on its axis. It doesn't take another 8.5 minutes for the light to arrive to see our surroundings. This was just his way of explaining efferent vision. It was hypothetical.

As long as the sun shines, its light is always here, just that the light we see right now left the sun eight minutes ago.

The photons are constantly being replaced but that does not mean we see the Sun in delayed time.

No, it doesn't. But there are plenty of things that do mean that.

The sundial works because the Sun casts a shadow

Yes.

depending on the rotation of the Earth

Not really; The shadow would be cast whether or not the Earth rotated.

, which allows the time of day to be approximated.

Sure.

In 8.5 minutes, the dial would have moved two degrees

Yes!

There is nothing here that tells us we are seeing in delayed time.

Yes, there is. I literally just explained to you, in detail, a method to demonstrate it for yourself.

 

[peacegirl]

.

cont... Daybreak, also known as dawn, is the time in the morning when the sun begins to rise and light starts to appear in the sky. It marks the transition from night to day and is characterized by the gradual increase in light as the sun approaches the horizon. askfilo.com

Whether we see in real time or delayed time would not change what we see. The Sun would come over the horizon at exactly the same time regardless of which version of sight is true. I cannot repeat this enough. Nothing that you believe disproves his claim actually does that.

Peacegirl, do you really think people here don’t know what daybreak means?

You stated we see the sun instantly, with no time delay.

You also stated we would have to wait 8.5 minutes for the light to arrive to see our surroundings.

As noted, If that were true, then when the sun rose, the ground would remain dark for 8.5 minutes before lighting up.

We do not observe that.

Hence, your fable is falsified.

I already told you that the light from the Sun is already here; it's just on the other side as the earth spins on its axis. It doesn't take another 8.5 minutes for the light to arrive to see our surroundings. This was just his way of explaining efferent vision. It was hypothetical.

As long as the sun shines, its light is always here, just that the light we see right now left the sun eight minutes ago.

The photons are constantly being replaced but that does not mean we see the Sun in delayed time.

No, it doesn't. But there are plenty of things that do mean that.

The sundial works because the Sun casts a shadow

Yes.

depending on the rotation of the Earth

Not really; The shadow would be cast whether or not the Earth rotated.

, which allows the time of day to be approximated.

Sure.

In 8.5 minutes, the dial would have moved two degrees

Yes!

There is nothing here that tells us we are seeing in delayed time.

Yes, there is. I literally just explained to you, in detail, a method to demonstrate it for yourself.

Bilby, it doesn't fly. Not in the slightest.

 

[DBT]

It does fly. There is no doubt that light has a velocity and travel time from an object to the eye, which is the time lag between emission and acquisition and the reason why we see things as they were at the moment of emission.

 

[peacegirl]

It does fly. There is no doubt that light has a velocity and travel time from an object to the eye, which is the time lag between emission and acquisition and the reason why we see things as they were at the moment of emission.

I never said that light doesn't have a velocity and travel time from an object to the eye, but it is a false conclusion that, as a result, we see the object in delayed time. This is a fallacy and the sundial experiment did nothing to prove real time vision wrong. Everything would work in the same way whether it would be in delayed or real time so it's not a good test.

How a Sundial Works (And Why You Need One in Your Backyard)

Let’s step back in time to examine what makes sundials, the original time-keeping devices, tick.

theslenderwrist.com

 

[peacegirl]

Refraction is cool.

What Is Refraction of Light?

As the Sun rises & sets, it's visible even when below the horizon as sunlight is refracted. What is sunrise, what is sunset? How does refraction of light affect it?

www.timeanddate.com

 

[bilby]

Bilby, it doesn't fly. Not in the slightest.

Why not? Explain to me exactly what part of it is wrong, and why.

Not hints, insinuations and denials; Highlight for me what you think doesn't apply, and tell me why it doesn't:

Here's how it works:​

​

At any time during the day, when the sun is unobscured by cloud and shadows are cast, we can see that the Sun appears to move across the sky at roughly four times its own diameter every eight minutes. The shadows it casts "move" across the ground at the same angular velocity. That's how a sundial works - a sundial shows how the Sun appears to move across the sky at a steady rate that matches the rotation of the Earth.​

​

If you stand near a post, building or other structure, theres a spot you can be in where Sun can be 'hidden' behind that object, so that you can't see it. Lets pick a telegraph or power pole (you could use a tree or a shed, or whatever, if you prefer, as long as it's tall enough and thin enough that there's somewhere to stand where the Sun is only just hidden behind the pole).​

​

Pick a spot to stand, facing the Sun, far enough back so that the Sun is only just blocked by the pole - so that if you move even the tiniest bit to either side, you will see the edge of the Sun.​

​

Now, the ground at your feet is illuminated on either side by sunlight that left the Sun eight and a half minutes ago. The shadow is pointing directly at where the Sun was when that light left the Sun - if it wasn't, the shadow wouldn't be where it is.​

​

But the Sun has moved since that light left it. It is eight and a half minutes, or four solar diameters, further along its apparent path across the sky than it was when it sent out that light.​

​

So, if we see the Sun instantly, with no delay, then we should see it, four 'pole widths' to one side of the pole, while we are standing in the shadow; And when we stand so that the Sun is exactly blocked by the pole, we should be in sunlight, with the shadow falling off to one side, four times it's own width counter-clockwise from where we are standing.​

​

That's an unavoidable result, IF we see the Sun instantly, but see the light reflect off the ground only after that eight and a half minute delay. The spot where the Sun is completely obscured from view should, according to your hypothesis, be outside the shadow cast by the post.​

​

This is an observation that is directly implied by your hypothesis. If you are right, then the above is exactly what we must see. It's also not what we actually observe, if and when we do the experiment. Don't take my word for it - do the experiment for yourself. Anyone can, on any sunny day.​

 

[pood]

 

[peacegirl]

Bilby, it doesn't fly. Not in the slightest.

Why not? Explain to me exactly what part of it is wrong, and why.

Not hints, insinuations and denials; Highlight for me what you think doesn't apply, and tell me why it doesn't:

Here's how it works:​

​

At any time during the day, when the sun is unobscured by cloud and shadows are cast, we can see that the Sun appears to move across the sky at roughly four times its own diameter every eight minutes. The shadows it casts "move" across the ground at the same angular velocity. That's how a sundial works - a sundial shows how the Sun appears to move across the sky at a steady rate that matches the rotation of the Earth.​

​

If you stand near a post, building or other structure, theres a spot you can be in where Sun can be 'hidden' behind that object, so that you can't see it. Lets pick a telegraph or power pole (you could use a tree or a shed, or whatever, if you prefer, as long as it's tall enough and thin enough that there's somewhere to stand where the Sun is only just hidden behind the pole).​

​

Pick a spot to stand, facing the Sun, far enough back so that the Sun is only just blocked by the pole - so that if you move even the tiniest bit to either side, you will see the edge of the Sun.​

​

Now, the ground at your feet is illuminated on either side by sunlight that left the Sun eight and a half minutes ago. The shadow is pointing directly at where the Sun was when that light left the Sun - if it wasn't, the shadow wouldn't be where it is.​

​

But the Sun has moved since that light left it. It is eight and a half minutes, or four solar diameters, further along its apparent path across the sky than it was when it sent out that light.​

As far as I read, the Sun moves 0.25 degrees every 8.5 minutes. This means that during the Earth's rotation, the Sun's apparent position changes by this amount in that time frame. That is what is being observed using a sundial. You say the Sun moved since that light left it, which is why different parts of the day show a different shadow, but this does not prove that we are observing the Sun's movement in delayed time.

Sundials do show new shadows every 8.5 minutes as the Earth rotates. This is because the Earth rotates approximately 360 degrees in 24 hours, which means the sun's apparent position changes at a predictable rate. As the sun moves across the sky, the shadow cast by the gnomon on the sundial also moves, allowing it to indicate the time of day accurately.
sundialsoc.org.uk

​

So, if we see the Sun instantly, with no delay, then we should see it, four 'pole widths' to one side of the pole, while we are standing in the shadow; And when we stand so that the Sun is exactly blocked by the pole, we should be in sunlight, with the shadow falling off to one side, four times it's own width counter-clockwise from where we are standing.​

​

That's an unavoidable result, IF we see the Sun instantly, but see the light reflect off the ground only after that eight and a half minute delay. The spot where the Sun is completely obscured from view should, according to your hypothesis, be outside the shadow cast by the post.​

I'm not sure how an 8.5-minute delay where light travels to Earth disproves seeing in real time if it's not the light that is carrying the image. That's the only argument; everything else is exactly how science describes. I'm not arguing with all of science. It upsets me that people must think this author was crazy, but he wasn't.

​

This is an observation that is directly implied by your hypothesis. If you are right, then the above is exactly what we must see. It's also not what we actually observe, if and when we do the experiment. Don't take my word for it - do the experiment for yourself. Anyone can, on any sunny day.​

I believe that sundials work exactly as you describe. We also know that it takes 8.5 minutes for light from the Sun to reach Earth. But that does not in any way disprove that what we see is in real time. I know this claim must be uncomfortable for many people. I really don't mean to disturb anyone's comfort.

 

[peacegirl]

Every theory is built on premises. If any of the premises are inaccurate or plain wrong, then everything that is built using that premise is also in question.

Webb telescope and expansion of the universe​

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has played a crucial role in confirming the expansion of the universe and addressing the Hubble tension. JWST's infrared cameras allow it to look at the universe in more precise detail than any telescope before it. By measuring distances from Earth to specific kinds of galaxies with pulsating stars called Cepheid variables, JWST has provided a cross-check to Hubble's measurements, confirming the Hubble constant and ruling out the possibility of measurement error. This research builds on Riess' Nobel Prize–winning discovery that the universe's expansion is accelerating due to dark energy. The findings suggest that our understanding of the universe may be incomplete and open up new opportunities to learn more about it.

Smithsonian Magazine

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.space.com/universe-expansion-could-be-a-mirage

 

[pood]

Every theory is built on premises. If any of the premises are inaccurate or plain wrong, then everything that is built using that premise is also in question.

Webb telescope and expansion of the universe​

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has played a crucial role in confirming the expansion of the universe and addressing the Hubble tension. JWST's infrared cameras allow it to look at the universe in more precise detail than any telescope before it. By measuring distances from Earth to specific kinds of galaxies with pulsating stars called Cepheid variables, JWST has provided a cross-check to Hubble's measurements, confirming the Hubble constant and ruling out the possibility of measurement error. This research builds on Riess' Nobel Prize–winning discovery that the universe's expansion is accelerating due to dark energy. The findings suggest that our understanding of the universe may be incomplete and open up new opportunities to learn more about it.

Smithsonian Magazine

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.space.com/universe-expansion-could-be-a-mirage

What does this have to do with anything, peacegirl?

 

[pood]

Bilby, it doesn't fly. Not in the slightest.

Why not? Explain to me exactly what part of it is wrong, and why.

Not hints, insinuations and denials; Highlight for me what you think doesn't apply, and tell me why it doesn't:

Here's how it works:​

​

At any time during the day, when the sun is unobscured by cloud and shadows are cast, we can see that the Sun appears to move across the sky at roughly four times its own diameter every eight minutes. The shadows it casts "move" across the ground at the same angular velocity. That's how a sundial works - a sundial shows how the Sun appears to move across the sky at a steady rate that matches the rotation of the Earth.​

​

If you stand near a post, building or other structure, theres a spot you can be in where Sun can be 'hidden' behind that object, so that you can't see it. Lets pick a telegraph or power pole (you could use a tree or a shed, or whatever, if you prefer, as long as it's tall enough and thin enough that there's somewhere to stand where the Sun is only just hidden behind the pole).​

​

Pick a spot to stand, facing the Sun, far enough back so that the Sun is only just blocked by the pole - so that if you move even the tiniest bit to either side, you will see the edge of the Sun.​

​

Now, the ground at your feet is illuminated on either side by sunlight that left the Sun eight and a half minutes ago. The shadow is pointing directly at where the Sun was when that light left the Sun - if it wasn't, the shadow wouldn't be where it is.​

​

But the Sun has moved since that light left it. It is eight and a half minutes, or four solar diameters, further along its apparent path across the sky than it was when it sent out that light.​

As far as I read, the Sun moves 0.25 degrees every 8.5 minutes. This means that during the Earth's rotation, the Sun's apparent position changes by this amount in that time frame. That is what is being observed using a sundial. You say the Sun moved since that light left it, which is why different parts of the day show a different shadow, but this does not prove that we are observing the Sun's movement in delayed time.

Sundials do show new shadows every 8.5 minutes as the Earth rotates. This is because the Earth rotates approximately 360 degrees in 24 hours, which means the sun's apparent position changes at a predictable rate. As the sun moves across the sky, the shadow cast by the gnomon on the sundial also moves, allowing it to indicate the time of day accurately.
sundialsoc.org.uk

​

So, if we see the Sun instantly, with no delay, then we should see it, four 'pole widths' to one side of the pole, while we are standing in the shadow; And when we stand so that the Sun is exactly blocked by the pole, we should be in sunlight, with the shadow falling off to one side, four times it's own width counter-clockwise from where we are standing.​

​

That's an unavoidable result, IF we see the Sun instantly, but see the light reflect off the ground only after that eight and a half minute delay. The spot where the Sun is completely obscured from view should, according to your hypothesis, be outside the shadow cast by the post.​

I'm not sure how an 8.5-minute delay where light travels to Earth disproves seeing in real time if it's not the light that is carrying the image. That's the only argument; everything else is exactly how science describes. I'm not arguing with all of science. It upsets me that people must think this author was crazy, but he wasn't.

​

This is an observation that is directly implied by your hypothesis. If you are right, then the above is exactly what we must see. It's also not what we actually observe, if and when we do the experiment. Don't take my word for it - do the experiment for yourself. Anyone can, on any sunny day.​

I believe that sundials work exactly as you describe. We also know that it takes 8.5 minutes for light from the Sun to reach Earth. But that does not in any way disprove that what we see is in real time. I know this claim must be uncomfortable for many people. I really don't mean to disturb anyone's comfort.

You are not disturbing anyone’s comfort, peacegirl. You are, OTOH, making a total fool of yourself.