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

[pood]

How the James Webb telescope sees back in time

 

[peacegirl]

A lot. If the universe is not expanding, then what does that say about the ideas that come from this that could now be in question. It’s not directly related but it tells us that not all scientific theories are written in stone.

 

[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.​

As far as I read, the Sun moves 0.25 degrees every 8.5 minutes.

It's apparent motion is about 0.25 degrees per minute. In 8.5 minutes, it moves a bit more than two degrees (8.5 x 0.25 = 2.125). The sun's disk as seen from Earth is about 0.5° in diameter, so in 8.5 minutes, it moves about four times its diameter.

This means that during the Earth's rotation, the Sun's apparent position changes by this amount in that time frame.

Assuming that you accept my minor correction to your arithmetic, yes.

That is what is being observed using a sundial.

What is? The apparent motion of the Sun across a given period of time? Yes. The direction from which the sunlight is arriving at any particular instant? Also yes.

The first observation is important to people who want to know roughly what time it is. But we don't care about that.

It's the second observation we are interested in here.

You say the Sun moved since that light left it,

Yes.

which is why different parts of the day show a different shadow,

No. That's due to the continuous movement of the Earth/Sun system. It's a thing that's happening, but it's not relevant here, because our experiment is a single point observation - we are looking at the post, the Sun, and the shadow at a single point in time. You could take a photograph of the setup and use that to make all the same observations my experiment entails; No time need pass for any of it to work exactly as I described.

but this does not prove that we are observing the Sun's movement in delayed time.

It does "prove" (I would say "demonstrate") that we are observing the Sun in delayed time. Movement is totally irrelevant.

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

Yup.

​

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.

Because the light is illuminating your surroundings.

As it took 8.5 minutes to arrive, it is arriving from a direction 2° offset from the actual direction of the Sun.

If we see the Sun "in real time", it will be seen in a different direction from the direction in which the shadow points.

Only if we see the Sun with the exact same delay as we see the illumination of the ground, will the shadow point directly in line with the place where we see the Sun.

That's the only argument;

You haven't made an argument. You've just introduced an irrelevant observation about how sundials tell time, and then handwaved that somehow this might explain something you didn't clearly set out.

everything else is exactly how science describes. I'm not arguing with all of science.

I wouldn't object if you did; There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. My problem is that you are not being explicit or precise in your argument, which means you are not arguing at all, so much as flailing around looking for some hook to hang your preconceptions on.

Be precise. Be explicit. Say exactly what you mean, and give your audience a path to follow, step by step, from your observations to your conclusion.

This is no good:

​

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.

If you are not sure, then go through the steps one at a time, and find the point where understanding breaks down.

And don't assume anything in advance. "if it's not the light that is carrying the image" is the claim under question. You cannot use it as a foundation for your argument, because it's your conclusion. That phrase takes you from a scientific analysis of the world, and puts you instead into a faith based search for proof of your pre-existing beliefs.

It upsets me that people must think this author was crazy, but he wasn't.

That's totally irrelevant right now; We are currently looking only at whether he was right or wrong in this one specific claim; And we are using only objective observations, that anyone can make for themselves, to do that.

​

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.

Reality doesn't care what anyone believes, and nor do I.

We also know that it takes 8.5 minutes for light from the Sun to reach Earth.

We do.

But that does not in any way disprove that what we see is in real time.

That single fact alone doesn't, no. But my explicit and detailed experiment does. Can you point out an error in it?

I know this claim must be uncomfortable for many people. I really don't mean to disturb anyone's comfort.

Comfort is not at issue here. Just logic, observation, and reality.

If the way reality is makes anyone uncomfortable, then they will just have to learn to live with discomfort, because reality won't change to accommodate them.

 

[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.

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

How a sundial works doesn’t negate the fact of light emission, distance and travel time. The sun is shining and its apparent position as the earth rotates casts a shadow on the dial, that's all.

 

[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.

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

This observation did not come from astronomy. That is why I can't answer your question to your satisfaction. What I do know (believe,
) is that observing the Sun as it moves across the sky can be seen in real time, while the shadow seen on a sundial is also correct. Did you read anything he wrote on the subject? Do you know what his reasoning was?

 

[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

How a sundial works doesn’t negate the fact of light emission, distance and travel time. The sun is shining and its apparent position as the earth rotates casts a shadow on the dial, that's all.

I get that. Thanks.

 

[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.

This observation did not come from astronomy. That is why I can't answer your question to your satisfaction. What I do know (believe,
) is that observing the Sun as it moves across the sky can be seen in real time, while the shadow seen on a sundial is also correct. Did you read anything he wrote on the subject? Do you know what his reasoning was?

No, both cannot be correct. Can you not read properly?

 

[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.

It's apparent motion is about 0.25 degrees per minute. In 8.5 minutes, it moves a bit more than two degrees (8.5 x 0.25 = 2.125). The sun's disk as seen from Earth is about 0.5° in diameter, so in 8.5 minutes, it moves about four times its diameter.

This means that during the Earth's rotation, the Sun's apparent position changes by this amount in that time frame.

Assuming that you accept my minor correction to your arithmetic, yes.

That is what is being observed using a sundial.

What is? The apparent motion of the Sun across a given period of time? Yes. The direction from which the sunlight is arriving at any particular instant? Also yes.

The first observation is important to people who want to know roughly what time it is. But we don't care about that.

It's the second observation we are interested in here.

You say the Sun moved since that light left it,

Yes.

which is why different parts of the day show a different shadow,

No. That's due to the continuous movement of the Earth/Sun system. It's a thing that's happening, but it's not relevant here, because our experiment is a single point observation - we are looking at the post, the Sun, and the shadow at a single point in time. You could take a photograph of the setup and use that to make all the same observations my experiment entails; No time need pass for any of it to work exactly as I described.

but this does not prove that we are observing the Sun's movement in delayed time.

It does "prove" (I would say "demonstrate") that we are observing the Sun in delayed time. Movement is totally irrelevant.

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

Yup.

​

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.

Because the light is illuminating your surroundings.

As it took 8.5 minutes to arrive, it is arriving from a direction 2° offset from the actual direction of the Sun.

If we see the Sun "in real time", it will be seen in a different direction from the direction in which the shadow points.

Only if we see the Sun with the exact same delay as we see the illumination of the ground, will the shadow point directly in line with the place where we see the Sun.

That's the only argument;

You haven't made an argument. You've just introduced an irrelevant observation about how sundials tell time, and then handwaved that somehow this might explain something you didn't clearly set out.

You keep saying it takes 8.5 minutes for the photons to get here, but they are already here. It's the position of the Earth that causes the shadow as the Sun moves across the sky. I'm trying to understand what you're saying, but it's hard because this is not my expertise, and it doesn't have to be for him to be right.

When the sun moves across the sky and a sundial registers the shadow, the photons are always present, but their position changes due to the Earth's rotation. As the Earth rotates, the sun appears to move across the sky, causing the shadow of the sundial to shift position. This change in shadow corresponds to the sun's position relative to the Earth, which is why the sundial indicates time.

eaae-astronomy.org

everything else is exactly how science describes. I'm not arguing with all of science.

I wouldn't object if you did; There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. My problem is that you are not being explicit or precise in your argument, which means you are not arguing at all, so much as flailing around looking for some hook to hang your preconceptions on.

Be precise. Be explicit. Say exactly what you mean, and give your audience a path to follow, step by step, from your observations to your conclusion.

This is no good:

​

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. What is confusing to me is the 8.5 minute delay.

If you are not sure, then go through the steps one at a time, and find the point where understanding breaks down.

This is not my lane, granted. This is not where his observations came from. If he is right, then astronomers have to rethink their theory about light and sight.

And don't assume anything in advance. "if it's not the light that is carrying the image" is the claim under question. You cannot use it as a foundation for your argument, because it's your conclusion. That phrase takes you from a scientific analysis of the world, and puts you instead into a faith based search for proof of your pre-existing beliefs.

It might be my conclusion, but it comes from astute observation. I am not searching for proof for my pre-existing beliefs. Either the proof is there or it's not.

It upsets me that people must think this author was crazy, but he wasn't.

That's totally irrelevant right now; We are currently looking only at whether he was right or wrong in this one specific claim; And we are using only objective observations, that anyone can make for themselves, to do that.

Again, the 8.5 minute delay is confusing the issue because it makes it seem that we are waiting for the light to arrive. But it is already there at as the earth rotates and allows the shadow to appear. There is no delay.

​

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.

Reality doesn't care what anyone believes, and nor do I.

True. Reality is what it is.

We also know that it takes 8.5 minutes for light from the Sun to reach Earth.

We do.

But once again this delay that you say is occurring, is problematic.

But that does not in any way disprove that what we see is in real time.

That single fact alone doesn't, no. But my explicit and detailed experiment does. Can you point out an error in it?

No, I don't see an error. It obviously works because the sundial doesn't lie. The thing I am wondering about is the calculation of time delay.

I know this claim must be uncomfortable for many people. I really don't mean to disturb anyone's comfort.

Comfort is not at issue here. Just logic, observation, and reality.

If the way reality is makes anyone uncomfortable, then they will just have to learn to live with discomfort, because reality won't change to accommodate them.

You are right about that. That is why I hope you will try to understand his first discovery regarding determinism. He even said that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. He would be the first person to concede if he, for one second, thought he was wrong.

 

[bilby]

You keep saying it takes 8.5 minutes for the photons to get here, but they are already here.

Yes, but they left the Sun 8.5 minutes ago. So they aren't coming from the direction of where the Sun is now, they are coming from where it was 8.5 minutes ago.

So if we are seeing the Sun where it is now, it's won't be in line with the shadow.

It will only be in line with the shadow if we are seeing it where it was 8.5 minutes ago, when the photons left it.

 

[peacegirl]

You keep saying it takes 8.5 minutes for the photons to get here, but they are already here.

Yes, but they left the Sun 8.5 minutes ago. So they aren't coming from the direction of where the Sun is now, they are coming from where it was 8.5 minutes ago.

This goes right back to the original disputation which argues that we are not seeing light that was 8.5 minutes ago, but light that is here in the present. You’re assuming that we would see the Sun in the past if the Sun hadn’t changed position. There’s a big disconnect here.

So if we are seeing the Sun where it is now, it's won't be in line with the shadow.

It will only be in line with the shadow if we are seeing it where it was 8.5 minutes ago, when the photons left it.

It is obviously true that the light is from 8.5 minutes ago and it also is true that the shadow is seen only when the light gets here, but it is not true that we would see the Sun’s shadow in the present. How could we when the Sun has moved within that time frame (8.5 minutes) in real time as the Earth is spinning? The conclusion drawn that we are seeing the past from this respectable and time-honored instrument doesn’t pan out. I know you won’t accept my interpretation and that’s okay. I’m just glad you’re being civil.

 

[DBT]

You keep saying it takes 8.5 minutes for the photons to get here, but they are already here.

Yes, but they left the Sun 8.5 minutes ago. So they aren't coming from the direction of where the Sun is now, they are coming from where it was 8.5 minutes ago.

This goes right back to the original disputation which argues that we are not seeing light that was 8.5 minutes ago, but light that is here in the present. You’re assuming that we would see the Sun in the past if the Sun hadn’t changed position. There’s a big disconnect here.

So if we are seeing the Sun where it is now, it's won't be in line with the shadow.

It will only be in line with the shadow if we are seeing it where it was 8.5 minutes ago, when the photons left it.

It is obviously true that the light is from 8.5 minutes ago and it also is true that the shadow is seen only when the light gets here, but it is not true that we would see the Sun’s shadow in the present. How could we when the Sun has moved within that time frame (8.5 minutes) in real time as the Earth is spinning? The conclusion drawn that we are seeing the past from this respectable and time-honored instrument doesn’t pan out. I know you won’t accept my interpretation and that’s okay. I’m just glad you’re being civil.

Because we are seeing the sun as it was 8.5 minutes ago doesn't mean we are seeing the objects around us as they were 8.5 minutes ago. We see the sundial, trees, people, etc, in the time it takes for the light to reflect off them and be acquired by the eyes and processed by the brain, which is milliseconds.

 

[peacegirl]

You keep saying it takes 8.5 minutes for the photons to get here, but they are already here.

Yes, but they left the Sun 8.5 minutes ago. So they aren't coming from the direction of where the Sun is now, they are coming from where it was 8.5 minutes ago.

This goes right back to the original disputation which argues that we are not seeing light that was 8.5 minutes ago, but light that is here in the present. You’re assuming that we would see the Sun in the past if the Sun hadn’t changed position. There’s a big disconnect here.

So if we are seeing the Sun where it is now, it's won't be in line with the shadow.

It will only be in line with the shadow if we are seeing it where it was 8.5 minutes ago, when the photons left it.

It is obviously true that the light is from 8.5 minutes ago and it also is true that the shadow is seen only when the light gets here, but it is not true that we would see the Sun’s shadow in the present. How could we when the Sun has moved within that time frame (8.5 minutes) in real time as the Earth is spinning? The conclusion drawn that we are seeing the past from this respectable and time-honored instrument doesn’t pan out. I know you won’t accept my interpretation and that’s okay. I’m just glad you’re being civil.

Because we are seeing the sun as it was 8.5 minutes ago doesn't mean we are seeing the objects around us as they were 8.5 minutes ago. We see the sundial, trees, people, etc, in the time it takes for the light to reflect off them and be acquired by the eyes and processed by the brain, which is milliseconds.

But if we are seeing the reflection in real time, it won’t show this. The only way to compare apples to apples in any fair way is to understand his observations, which people are reluctant to do.

 

[peacegirl]

When the sun moves across the sky and a sundial registers the shadow, the photons are always present, but their position changes due to the Earth's rotation. As the Earth rotates, the sun appears to move across the sky, causing the shadow of the sundial to shift position. This change in shadow corresponds to the sun's position relative to the Earth, which is why the sundial indicates time.


https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=d961...bmRpYWwvaG93LWRvZXMtYS1zdW5kaWFsLXdvcms&ntb=1

 

[peacegirl]

I believe the only way to prove him wrong is to understand where his observations came from. If his observations cannot be disproved, then people may need to rethink whether science got this one aspect wrong. I know this is hard to even contemplate because seeing in delayed time is one of the building blocks of so many other theories out there. But to reject the idea that we see in real time just because it disrupts the status quo is not a reason to ignore it. Another problem is that seeing in delayed time has graduated into fact, but if there is a reason to challenge this theory, and it is ignored before any real investigation is done, then how can we ever know what is true, even if it means rejecting a theory that has been accepted as fact for centuries? Maybe it is true, maybe it isn't. I also know there are cranks out there, but he wasn't one of them. To throw his observations out because the very idea is hard to swallow, is being way too premature and not in keeping with what science is all about. On the other hand, if scientists find his evidence lacking in proof after testing it (I'm sure there's a way), then they can let his claim go. But to reject his claim without thoroughly vetting it to see if there is any truth to it, is not science. It's dogma. I realize it sounds counterintuitive to say we see in real time because light travels, which is why people are so up in arms and against the very notion that this is even possible.

 

[DBT]

He is clearly wrong on the matter of instant vision/ light at the eye. In relation to the physics of light and eye and brain function, it doesn't even make sense. So the idea is being asserted without evidence or explanation of how it may work and indisputable evidence against it.

That is why anyone with even a basic understanding of physics rejects the claim.

 

[peacegirl]

He is clearly wrong on the matter of instant vision/ light at the eye. In relation to the physics of light and eye and brain function, it doesn't even make sense. So the idea is being asserted without evidence or explanation of how it may work and indisputable evidence against it.

That is why anyone with even a basic understanding of physics rejects the claim.

He is clearly wrong on the matter of instant vision/ light at the eye. In relation to the physics of light and eye and brain function, it doesn't even make sense. So the idea is being asserted without evidence or explanation of how it may work and indisputable evidence against it.

Who said he didn't have evidence?

That is why anyone with even a basic understanding of physics rejects the claim.

It doesn't make sense to you because you believe that light bounces off of objects and carries the images (or wavelengths) to the eye and then interpreted in the brain, which is logical. But logic is not proof. Physics is correct that light travels 186,000 miles a second, but this is as far as it goes. It is impossible for you to respond objectively when you don't even know what his observations were. You don't even seem to have the desire to see if his claim has any validity because you are so sure that it doesn't. That is not science, sorry.

 

[pood]

They don’t.

 

[DBT]

He is clearly wrong on the matter of instant vision/ light at the eye. In relation to the physics of light and eye and brain function, it doesn't even make sense. So the idea is being asserted without evidence or explanation of how it may work and indisputable evidence against it.

That is why anyone with even a basic understanding of physics rejects the claim.

He is clearly wrong on the matter of instant vision/ light at the eye. In relation to the physics of light and eye and brain function, it doesn't even make sense. So the idea is being asserted without evidence or explanation of how it may work and indisputable evidence against it.

Who said he didn't have evidence?



What evidence is there for instant vision?

 

[peacegirl]

He is clearly wrong on the matter of instant vision/ light at the eye. In relation to the physics of light and eye and brain function, it doesn't even make sense. So the idea is being asserted without evidence or explanation of how it may work and indisputable evidence against it.

That is why anyone with even a basic understanding of physics rejects the claim.

That is only because of the speed of light. From there, they assumed light was bringing images through space/time, and there was no way you could convince them otherwise once it was thought to be a basic scientific fact.

He is clearly wrong on the matter of instant vision/ light at the eye. In relation to the physics of light and eye and brain function, it doesn't even make sense. So the idea is being asserted without evidence or explanation of how it may work and indisputable evidence against it.

Who said he didn't have evidence?



What evidence is there for instant vision?

Srsly DBT, do you actually think I would come on a philosophy forum making this kind of claim without having anything to back it up? It would be suicidal. I will paste the introduction to this chapter but I'm not going to post his observations. Is it that hard to buy the book for $1.95 just for this chapter alone? Then return the book and get your dollar back. Geeze!!

WORDS, NOT REALITY​

Our problem of hurting each other is very deep-rooted and begins with words through which we have not been allowed to see reality for what it really is. Supposing I stood up in one of our universities and said, “Ladies and gentlemen, I am prepared to prove that man does not have five senses, which has nothing to do with a sixth sense,” wouldn’t all the professors laugh and say, “Are you serious or are you being funny? You can’t be serious because everybody knows man has five senses. This is an established fact.” The definition of epistemology is the theory or science of the method and grounds of knowledge, especially with reference to its limits and validity. For the modern empiricist, the only way knowledge becomes ‘stamped’ onto the human conscience is through internal and external sensations, or through sense experience. But there is surprising evidence that the eyes are not a sense organ. The idea that man has five senses originated with Aristotle, and it has never been challenged. He did this just as naturally as we would name anything to identify it. But he made an assumption that the eyes functioned like the other senses, so he included them in the definition. This is equivalent to calling an apple, pear, peach, orange, and potato five fruit.

The names given to these foods describe differences in substance that exist in the real world, but we certainly cannot call them five fruit since this word excludes the potato, which is not grown in the same manner as is described by the word fruit. Believe it or not, the eyes, similar to the potato in the above example, were classified in a category to which they did not belong. We cannot name the organs with which we communicate with the outside world — the five senses, when they do not function alike. Aristotle, however, didn’t know this. His logic and renown delayed an immediate investigation of his theory because no one dared oppose the genius of this individual without appearing ridiculous for such audacity, which brought about almost unanimous agreement. To disagree was so presumptuous that nobody dared to voice their disagreement because this would only incur disdainful criticism. Everyone believed that such a brilliant individual, such a genius, had to know whereof he spoke. This is not a criticism of Aristotle or of anyone. But even today, we are still in agreement regarding a fallacious observation about the brain and its relation to the eyes. Those who will consider the possibility that you might have a discovery reveal their confusion by trying to nullify any value to it with this comment, as was made to me, “What difference does it make what we call them as a group, this isn’t going to change what we are. Whether we call them five senses, or four senses and a pair of eyes, is certainly not going to change them in any way.” However, if man doesn’t really have five senses, isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think otherwise, we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery? Consequently, it does make a difference what we call them.

Just as my first discovery was not that man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening that door for a thorough investigation, so likewise, my second discovery is not that man does not have five senses but what significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door. Many years later, we have an additional problem that is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear, any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth. However, it appears that they will not be given the opportunity because the very moment the will of God is perceived and understood, man is given no alternative as to what direction he must travel, which is away from condemning someone who has uncovered a falsehood. The real truth is that there are thousands upon thousands of differences existing in the external world, but when words do not describe these differences accurately, we are then seeing a distorted version of what exists — as with free will.

 

[bilby]

This goes right back to the original disputation which argues that

If what it "goes back to" is part of your argument, then you need to include it. You need to present an explicit and precise argument in full; Or at least link to such an argument.

What exact words do you refer to by your phrase "the original disputation"?

It's not reasonable to introduce vague clauses or vague references to your argument; Every clause must be presented in full (or links provided to a full text), or you are just handwaving.

I am going to assume that this bit is just "filler", and that what it represents is just:

we are not seeing light that was 8.5 minutes ago, but light that is here in the present.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. We only ever see light that is here in the present, and nobody has suggested otherwise. Certainly nothing in my experiment requires us to see light that is elsewhere, or to see at any time other than the present.

What mechanism could allow us to see light that is elsewhere, or that isn't here now?

You’re assuming that we would see the Sun in the past if the Sun hadn’t changed position.

I am not assuming anything. We agree that we see the light that left the Sun 8.5 minutes ago illuminating the ground now, except for the area where the post blocks that light and casts a shadow (at least, I think we agree. If we don't agree on this, please let me know).

We are testing to determine whether we see the Sun in the position it was in when that light departed from it; Or whether we see it in the position it is in now.

That's the purpose of the experiment. And we are not making any assumptions; We are going to take a look*, to see what actually happens.

There’s a big disconnect here.

The "disconnect" is between your preferred hypothesis, and the observed reality. The appropriate way to address such a disconnect is to test, and then if necessary reject or modify the hypothesis.

It is obviously true that the light is from 8.5 minutes ago and it also is true that the shadow is seen only when the light gets here

Yes. We agree on that.

but it is not true that we would see the Sun’s shadow in the present.

The shadow is just the bit of ground that the light can't get to because the post is in the way. Do you not agree with that? If not, what do you think the shadow is, and why do you think that?

How could we when the Sun has moved within that time frame (8.5 minutes) in real time as the Earth is spinning?

That's what we are trying to find out. We agree that the Sun has moved (please correct me if you don't agree); The question that we are now trying to answer is "Do we see the Sun where it is, or where it was?"

The conclusion drawn that we are seeing the past from this respectable and time-honored instrument doesn’t pan out.

It's not a conclusion; It's an observation. The Sun was in line with the post 8.5 minutes ago; We can see that, from the position of the shadow.

We know that the Sun has moved, since the light that casts the shadow left it.

We observe that we see the Sun in line with the post.

Your hypothesis (that we see the Sun where it is now, and not where it was when the light left it) predicts that we will see the Sun two degrees offset from the angle of the shadow.

But that does not occur.

I know you won’t accept my interpretation and that’s okay.

I am glad it's okay with you for people to accept what they can clearly see for themselves; And I invite you to do the same.

I’m just glad you’re being civil.

Thanks.

I think.







* And we are inviting anyone and everyone to take a look. Nobody is being asked to trust anybody; We encourage everyone to look for themselves. This isn't a thought experiment; Go outside, find a suitable post, and look!!