there’s no travel time when the eyes work the opposite way from what you believe.
To pick just one element from the fractal wrongness here; Why would there be no travel time if the eyes work "the opposite way"?
That's like saying it takes an hour to drive
to Nerang, but if I was going the opposite way, it wouldn't take any time at all. But we observe that it actually takes an hour to drive here
from Nerang.
No bilby, light traveling to the moon and back would be the same speed and distance each way. We are talking about how the eyes work ONLY. He demonstrated why he believed we see in real time. It makes absolute sense, but the problem is he is he is an unknown, someone who couldn't possibly have made a true discovery. Anybody who went against the grain of the thinking of Galileo's day, was ostracized, or worse. I hope you are not like the Catholic Church who told Galileo to stop discussing his ideas, or else. Throwing out his claims without a thorough study of his work is just as bad. This is what stops progress.
Galileo: His intellectual arguments, mathematical models and telescopic data failed to impress the Catholic authorities, and in February of 1616, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine took him aside and privately warned him to comply with the orders of the Church and stop writing or discussing his
ideas—or else.
"
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
That's why it's very important to distinguish between Bozo the clown and Einstein.
OK, let's compare and contrast. Galileo and Einstein and all these others didn't just sit down, stare at their navels, and then say "Eureka! I have a new idea about how reality works!".
They started with a problem. An odd, inconsistent, but universally applicable problem.
Every mariner and astronomer in Galileo's time knew that their model of the universe, with Earth at the centre, and the Moon, Sun, Planets, and fixed stars rotating around it in perfectly circular orbits
didn't match what they saw. Even when they added Epicycles, the model gave predictions that just didn't quite match their observations.
Einstein was presented with a similar niggling problem. The Galileo's heliocentric model, with various tweaks from such geniuses as Kepler, gave almost perfect predictions for everything - except the orbit of Mercury.
Galileo had a radical and heretical idea; What if the Earth isn't in the centre? When you build a model with the Sun in the centre, suddenly most of the problem disappears! Despite the heresy, the simple fact that
the problem goes away in the new paradigm suggests that it is nevertheless correct.
Einstein too had a radical idea. What if light doesn't travel in straight lines? Or rather, if it did, but the space through which it travels is distorted by the mass of the Sun, so that a straight line wasn't wat we had always imagined it to be? When you build a model in which space curves under the influence of mass, suddenly the problem disappears! Despite the heresy, the simple fact that
the problem goes away in the new paradigm suggests that it is nevertheless correct.
So, what is the observed discrepancy between reality and theory, that goes away when we say "What if the eye is not a sense organ?". What problem was there with the existing understanding that eyes sense light, and how does this radical idea make that problem go away?
The problem is not that he's an unknown, an iconoclast, a maverick, a contrarian, or an outsider.
Oh but it does. He was all of these things, but he was never given a fair chance to demonstrate his findings.
Even leaving aside the subject/verb mismatch, it is immediately obvious that this response is not to what I said, but to what you expected I might have said.
I didn't say he wasn't these things; I said that that wasn't the problem.
He was not the typical academic who came from a highly respected university which caused people to be uninterested in what he had to say. There was no way he could have brought his discovery to light in his lifetime. The same thing happened to Gregor Mendel and others. How can you even talk about him in this derogatory way when you don't understand anything about his observations or why he came to these conclusions. Do you understand why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ (explain it to me) or why it matters?
I don't.
Do you understand why man's will is not free, or are you just a run of the mill skeptic?
False dichotomy. Also assuming the consequent. You have yet to convince me that man's will is not free, much less that "why" is a viable question; And facts don't depend on being considered by non-skeptics, nor does skepticism alter reality in any way.
The problem is that he is wrong.
Says bilby who is now the arbiter of truth.
No, says observation of reality, which is the arbiter of truth.
His idea can be, and has been, tested against reality, and found to be false.
No one tested this version of how the brain works in relation to sight, so you're wrong again.
Your ignorance of the work done on optics and vision isn't evidence of its absence. The way eyes work has been studied in excruciating detail over the last few hundred years. Rather like the motions of the planets had just before Galileo came along.
Yet, unlike the motions of the planets, which were failing to match predictions in ways with real world consequences - shipwrecks, dead mariners, lost cargoes - the current model of how eyes work, and how light gets to them, has no such failings. There is no widely agreed problem, in need of a solution, however radical, heretical, or unexpected.
Your man here is solving a "problem" that
doesn't exist.
Galileo was abused by the church for his heresies; But he wasn't disproven, and his ideas did become widely accepted - not because he was a heretic, but because he was not wrong.
The Catholics thought they were right based on what they believed to be true using their methods to determine this.
Yes.
It's the same thing here.
No.
Scientists have made up their minds that their evidence is airtight and that what we SEE must be delayed because light travels, but they never took into account that their proof may not be proof at all.
No, they simply remark that their current model currently leads to zero problems, and so needs no revision at this time.
They have no qualms about changing the model if any such problems arise.
And science doesn't do proof. Proof is for mathematics and whisky.
Now anyone who disagrees with this "fact" (
) is considered to be a crank or a flat earther. This is no different than how the Catholic Church acted toward Galileo, even though the circumstances were different.
It is very different. And the crucial difference is that Galileo had a solution to a real and significant problem with the pre-existing model of reality.
Indeed, his solution was so effective (and even the Catholic Church were not completely un-moved by the effect of poor astronomical models on international commerce, the loss of valuable cargoes, and even the deaths of sailors who may not have had time to confess their sins before drowning), that the church allowed him to teach his ideas, as long as he was careful to say that it was just a mathematical trick, and not a description of God's perfect, Earth-centred, creation.
So, what widely known problem of optics, or sight, or the physics of light, is this radical new model supposed to fix; And can it do so without generating even bigger problems?
Because it's the solving of problems, without making even bigger problems in the process, that is the hallmark of genius.
Persecution for having radical ideas does happen to geniuses, or course; But it also happens to idiots and madmen, so it's not evidence either way.
Good ideas solve real problems. If an idea doesn't address a real problem, or causes more real problems than it solves, then it is not a
good idea; It's just an idea. And ideas are valueless.
No, most of them end in a region of the thalamus, which in case you were not aware is in the BRAIN. And they all process signals, IN, not OUT, which the biologist Lone Ranger explained to you 13 years ago.
