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

[peacegirl]

Your own model mandates that the shadow comes from delayed light!

Not at all Pood. The shadow is there because the light is there, allowing us to see the shadow. You are thinking that there is some kind of gap between the light and the shadow in real time vision. That is a false notion. Your version does not prove that we are detecting the image of the Sun in the delayed light. That is exactly what is being refuted.

You said that we see the sun in real time, but that we have to wait for the light from the sun to arrive 8.5 minutes later to see everything around us.

The example he gave was hypothetical to explain the difference between the two accounts and why we would see the Sun before seeing each other if the Sun was not turned on. But the Sun has already been turned on (it's approximately 4.6 billion years old), and once the light is here, the earth's rotation allows us to see each other when dawn arrives on our side of the planet, without an 8.5 minute delay..

This means that when the sun comes up in the morning, we would see it in real time, but not the ground or anything around us until 8.5 minutes have passed. This is not what we observe.

That's not true.

This also means that the direction of shadows would be out of sync with the sun. This is also not what we observe.

The direction of the shadows would be exactly in sync, no different than what we now see.

Your own model logically entails that we see two things that in fact we do not see!

This model does not entail seeing two things that we do not see.

 

[bilby]

The eyes evolved to detect light and transmit the information to the brain to represent in conscious visual form.

You are doing exactly what you tell me not to do. Eyes have evolved to detect light, but this is not the issue. In either version, light is being detected.

We have no other means or mechanism for seeing the world . Nothing to suggest some faculty of instant vision may bypass the very physical process that makes vision possible.

It makes no sense. There is no way for it to work, and what is understood about vision rules it out.

No way jose. You are not getting it because you don't want to get it.

If light is being detected, as you acknowledge, the light being detected had a travel time between the object emitting light and the eye.
natu
And as the light emitted by the object provides information about the object, we see the object as it was when the light was emitted by the object.

That's how vision works.

It's not light that is being detected first. It's the Sun that is seen because it meets the requirements of sight (i.e., it is luminous and large enough to be seen) without any travel time. Therefore, his claim still holds. The object is seen, not the other way around (i.e., the image). So, as the earth rotates, when the Sun comes into view, it is not seen in the past because it's not the delayed light that we are detecting after 8.5 minutes. The shadow is there naturally because the light is blocked but it doesn't prove that we see in delayed time. Bilby and you are just repeating the very thing that is being challenged.

It doesn't make a shred of difference to my experiment, whether we see the Sun through its light, or some other means.

If we see the Sun in real time, and the light (that casts a shadow when blocked by the post) with an 8.5 minute delay, then the Sun will not line up with the shadow.

This is true no matter how we come to see the Sun; It is solely a consequence of seeing it instantaneously.

No Bilby, that is the very thing being contested. You can't use this as proof to confirm anything.

What are you on about?

The test is solely a way to determine whether we see the Sun with the same delay as the light, or whether we see it instantaneously.

Yes, that's the thing being contested. I am re-stating the problem here.

Do you agree that that's what we are testing for?

We see the shadow of the post cast by light that left the Sun 8.5 minutes ago.

If we see the Sun with no delay, then it will be four solar diameters out of line with the shadow. No matter how we manage to see it instantly.

Do you see that, when you do this test?

I never said that we don't see a shadow.

Good. I never suggested that you did.

The test is accurate,

Yes.

but you are missing that this does not prove that the shadow comes from delayed light.

I am not "missing" that; It's one of the things YOU said:

Obviously, light has to travel to reach Earth and cast its shadow on an object that is blocking the sunlight. I am not disputing that.

So, the shadow points to where the Sun was when the light left the Sun to travel to Earth.

So IF you see the shadow in delayed time (as you say is "obvious"), AND you see the Sun in real time, THEN the shadow will be pointing at a spot a couple of degrees away from the Sun.

Is that what you see?

This test says nothing at all about HOW the difference, if any, comes to be; We can worry about that AFTER we demonstrate that there's a difference at all, so right now, we needn't care.

Your claims - real time seeing of the Sun itself, delayed time seeing of the light - can only both be true IF the shadow doesn't point directly at where we see the Sun. Because the Sun is no longer where it was when the light left it.

The test tests ONE THING ONLY - is the delay before seeing the light THE SAME as the delay before seeing the Sun; OR is it DIFFERENT.

HOW any differences came about is a question for later, after we have tested whether the difference exists at all.

 

[peacegirl]

The eyes evolved to detect light and transmit the information to the brain to represent in conscious visual form.

You are doing exactly what you tell me not to do. Eyes have evolved to detect light, but this is not the issue. In either version, light is being detected.

We have no other means or mechanism for seeing the world . Nothing to suggest some faculty of instant vision may bypass the very physical process that makes vision possible.

But it isn't bypassing anything. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Light is still at the eye. It actually works in reverse. We see the object, we don't interpret the light.

It makes no sense. There is no way for it to work, and what is understood about vision rules it out.

No way jose. You are not getting it because you don't want to get it.

If light is being detected, as you acknowledge, the light being detected had a travel time between the object emitting light and the eye.
natu
And as the light emitted by the object provides information about the object, we see the object as it was when the light was emitted by the object.

That's how vision works.

It's not light that is being detected first. It's the Sun that is seen because it meets the requirements of sight (i.e., it is luminous and large enough to be seen) without any travel time. Therefore, his claim still holds. The object is seen, not the other way around (i.e., the image). So, as the earth rotates, when the Sun comes into view, it is not seen in the past because it's not the delayed light that we are detecting after 8.5 minutes. The shadow is there naturally because the light is blocked but it doesn't prove that we see in delayed time. Bilby and you are just repeating the very thing that is being challenged.

It doesn't make a shred of difference to my experiment, whether we see the Sun through its light, or some other means.

The experiment works but it doesn't prove what you think it does (i.e., that we are converting delayed light into an image of the Sun).

If we see the Sun in real time, and the light (that casts a shadow when blocked by the post) with an 8.5 minute delay, then the Sun will not line up with the shadow.

This is true no matter how we come to see the Sun; It is solely a consequence of seeing it instantaneously.

No Bilby, that is the very thing being contested. You can't use this as proof to confirm anything.

What are you on about?

The test is solely a way to determine whether we see the Sun with the same delay as the light, or whether we see it instantaneously.

Yes, that's the thing being contested. I am re-stating the problem here.

Do you agree that that's what we are testing for?

The sundial gives us information about the time of day and a shadow will appear if the light is blocked. I think I confused you because I wasn't clear myself. Now that I can discuss this with more clarity, all we can know is that when the earth spins on its axis and the Sun is seen and the shadow is picked up by the sundial's gnomon, this is factual, but it doesn't tell us whether we are seeing in delayed or real time. We would see the same thing either way. You were trying to cause a mismatch between light that is delayed to show that the shadow would not show up in real time. That's not how it works because if he is right, we would not be seeing the Sun in delayed time; therefore, it would be a match and we would see exactly what the shadow casts off as well as the real object (i.e., the Sun). It is an assumption by science that we are detecting the Sun's image in the delayed light that was sent to us 8.5 minutes ago and that is what is being contested.

If we see the Sun with no delay, then it will be four solar diameters out of line with the shadow. No matter how we manage to see it instantly.

Do you see that, when you do this test?

I never said that we don't see a shadow.

Good. I never suggested that you did.

The test is accurate,

Yes.

but you are missing that this does not prove that the shadow comes from delayed light.

I am not "missing" that; It's one of the things YOU said:

Obviously, light has to travel to reach Earth and cast its shadow on an object that is blocking the sunlight. I am not disputing that.

So, the shadow points to where the Sun was when the light left the Sun to travel to Earth.

So IF you see the shadow in delayed time (as you say is "obvious"), AND you see the Sun in real time, THEN the shadow will be pointing at a spot a couple of degrees away from the Sun.

Is that what you see?

I was wrong about to say it was obvious. I hadn't thought it through. If real time vision is correct, we have to be seeing the shadow in real time as well as the Sun, which would not change the experiment to show anything different.

This test says nothing at all about HOW the difference, if any, comes to be; We can worry about that AFTER we demonstrate that there's a difference at all, so right now, we needn't care.

Your claims - real time seeing of the Sun itself, delayed time seeing of the light - can only both be true IF the shadow doesn't point directly at where we see the Sun. Because the Sun is no longer where it was when the light left it.

No, because we would see the Sun instantly as long as the Earth's rotation was in the direction of where the Sun was shining. That small degree of movement of the Sun would not come into play. I was confused earlier which is why it took quite a bit of thought.

The test tests ONE THING ONLY - is the delay before seeing the light THE SAME as the delay before seeing the Sun; OR is it DIFFERENT.

Seeing the Sun and seeing the light would be the same in both cases if afferent vision were true because both would be traveling for 8.5 minutes to get here and we would be seeing the shadow and the Sun in delayed time, but this is exactly what Lessans is disputing. If it is true that we see in real time, there is no travel time whatsoever.

HOW any differences came about is a question for later, after we have tested whether the difference exists at all.

There would be no difference in what is seen.

 

[DBT]

Light isn't "delayed," it has a speed and travel time. What we see is determined by the information acquired by the eyes and brain at the end of its journey, not at the start.

That's exactly what is being refuted. To just keeping it over and over doesn't prove anything.

The fact that light has a measurable speed proves it. As distance can be calculated, triangulation, etc, travel time can be worked out.

This is not true because I say so, it is verifiable.

Your claim has no means or mechanisms for it to work, it is not verifiable, it has no merit.

 

[bilby]

The experiment works but it doesn't prove what you think it does (i.e., that we are converting delayed light into an image of the Sun).

The experiment doesn't try to prove that, and what I (or you, or anyone) thinks is irrelevant. All that matters is what we see.

The experiment proves that we see the Sun, and the light from the Sun, with exactly the same delay. That's all.

This contradicts your claims that we see the Sun instantly, and the light from the Sun after 8.5 minutes.

 

[peacegirl]

Light isn't "delayed," it has a speed and travel time. What we see is determined by the information acquired by the eyes and brain at the end of its journey, not at the start.

That's exactly what is being refuted. To just keeping it over and over doesn't prove anything.

The fact that light has a measurable speed proves it. As distance can be calculated, triangulation, etc, travel time can be worked out.

This is not true because I say so, it is verifiable.

Who said light does not have a measurable speed?

Your claim has no means or mechanisms for it to work, it is not verifiable, it has no merit.

You are being stubborn because you refuse to even try to understand why he concluded this.

 

[peacegirl]

The experiment works but it doesn't prove what you think it does (i.e., that we are converting delayed light into an image of the Sun).

The experiment doesn't try to prove that, and what I (or you, or anyone) thinks is irrelevant. All that matters is what we see.

True. What someone thinks is irrelevant, I agree.

The experiment proves that we see the Sun, and the light from the Sun, with exactly the same delay. That's all.

And we would see the same exact thing if the eyes were efferent. That’s why this experiment would not prove anything.

This contradicts your claims that we see the Sun instantly, and the light from the Sun after 8.5 minutes.

That is what science has claimed, but I’m sorry to let you know the science is not settled.

 

[pood]

Your own model mandates that the shadow comes from delayed light!

Not at all Pood. The shadow is there because the light is there, allowing us to see the shadow. You are thinking that there is some kind of gap between the light and the shadow in real time vision. That is a false notion. Your version does not prove that we are detecting the image of the Sun in the delayed light. That is exactly what is being refuted.

You said that we see the sun in real time, but that we have to wait for the light from the sun to arrive 8.5 minutes later to see everything around us.

The example he gave was hypothetical to explain the difference between the two accounts and why we would see the Sun before seeing each other if the Sun was not turned on. But the Sun has already been turned on (it's approximately 4.6 billion years old), and once the light is here, the earth's rotation allows us to see each other when dawn arrives on our side of the planet, without an 8.5 minute delay..

No, peacegirl. I know your author/father wrote that when we wake up in the morning the “molecules” of light (yes, he actually thought light was made of molecules) are hanging around waiting to “smile on us,” but this is false, Light is always traveling at a very high rate of speed, whether from a source or reflected, and not “hanging around” anywhere. The only third possibility is that the light is absorbed, which means it is no longer light,

The fact that the sun was actually “turned on” 4.6 billion years ago is totally irrelevant. When the sun rises in the morning, that new light has to get here, which you admit takes some 8.5 minutes. Therefore it is just as bilby and I say — if your model were correct, at dawn we would see the sun instantly, but have to wait 8.5 minutes to see stuff around us. That is not what we observe.

 

[pood]

The experiment works but it doesn't prove what you think it does (i.e., that we are converting delayed light into an image of the Sun).

The experiment doesn't try to prove that, and what I (or you, or anyone) thinks is irrelevant. All that matters is what we see.

True. What someone thinks is irrelevant, I agree.

The experiment proves that we see the Sun, and the light from the Sun, with exactly the same delay. That's all.

And we would see the same exact thing if the eyes were efferent.

No, we would not, as has been demonstrated.

 

[peacegirl]

Your own model mandates that the shadow comes from delayed light!

Not at all Pood. The shadow is there because the light is there, allowing us to see the shadow. You are thinking that there is some kind of gap between the light and the shadow in real time vision. That is a false notion. Your version does not prove that we are detecting the image of the Sun in the delayed light. That is exactly what is being refuted.

You said that we see the sun in real time, but that we have to wait for the light from the sun to arrive 8.5 minutes later to see everything around us.

The example he gave was hypothetical to explain the difference between the two accounts and why we would see the Sun before seeing each other if the Sun was not turned on. But the Sun has already been turned on (it's approximately 4.6 billion years old), and once the light is here, the earth's rotation allows us to see each other when dawn arrives on our side of the planet, without an 8.5 minute delay..

No, peacegirl. I know your author/father wrote that when we wake up in the morning the “molecules” of light (yes, he actually thought light was made of molecules) are hanging around waiting to “smile on us,” but this is false, Light is always traveling at a very high rate of speed, whether from a source or reflected, and not “hanging around” anywhere. The only third possibility is that the light is absorbed, which means it is no longer light,

He used the wrong term. He was not an astronomer. To use that against is being shortsighted and a way to use a last ditch effort to try to discredit him. I hope people can see your motives. He never said that light hangs around.

The fact that the sun was actually “turned on” 4.6 billion years ago is totally irrelevant. When the sun rises in the morning, that new light has to get here, which you admit takes some 8.5 minutes. Therefore it is just as bilby and I say — if your model were correct, at dawn we would see the sun instantly, but have to wait 8.5 minutes to see stuff around us. That is not what we observe.

It does matter in regard to what we are seeing. You also refuse to even try to understand why light, although it travels, is not what is interpreted. Logic can make sense but it can also get in the way of seeing something in a different light, no pun intended!

 

[peacegirl]

The experiment works but it doesn't prove what you think it does (i.e., that we are converting delayed light into an image of the Sun).

The experiment doesn't try to prove that, and what I (or you, or anyone) thinks is irrelevant. All that matters is what we see.

True. What someone thinks is irrelevant, I agree.

The experiment proves that we see the Sun, and the light from the Sun, with exactly the same delay. That's all.

And we would see the same exact thing if the eyes were efferent.

No, we would not, as has been demonstrated.

Yes we would see the same thing. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[bilby]

If we see the Sun in real time, and the light (that casts a shadow when blocked by the post) with an 8.5 minute delay, then the Sun will not line up with the shadow.

This is true no matter how we come to see the Sun; It is solely a consequence of seeing it instantaneously.

No Bilby, that is the very thing being contested. You can't use this as proof to confirm anything.

What are you on about?

The test is solely a way to determine whether we see the Sun with the same delay as the light, or whether we see it instantaneously.

Yes, that's the thing being contested. I am re-stating the problem here.

Do you agree that that's what we are testing for?

The sundial gives us information about the time of day

That's completely irrelevant. We are not using it for that.

and a shadow will appear if the light is blocked.

Yes.

I think I confused you because I wasn't clear myself.

No shit.

Now that I can discuss this with more clarity, all we can know is that when the earth spins on its axis and the Sun is seen and the shadow is picked up by the sundial's gnomon, this is factual, but it doesn't tell us whether we are seeing in delayed or real time.

Sure it does.

We would see the same thing either way.

If we see the Sun in real time, and the shadow in delayed time, what we see will not be the same as if we see both in real time, or both in delayed time.

You were trying to cause a mismatch between light that is delayed to show that the shadow would not show up in real time.

I am not "trying to cause" anything. I am asking you to test your claims.

That's not how it works because if he is right, we would not be seeing the Sun in delayed time;

True. IF he is right.

therefore, it would be a match

False. IF he is right, we would see the shadow in delayed time, so there would be a mismatch.

and we would see exactly what the shadow casts off as well as the real object (i.e., the Sun).

We would see the shadow cast by the delayed light, pointing to where the Sun WAS 8.5 minutes ago, when that light left the Sun.

It is an assumption by science that we are detecting the Sun's image in the delayed light that was sent to us 8.5 minutes ago

Science doesn't make assumptions.

You agreed that we are seeing the shadow in delayed light.

You are claiming that we see the Sun with NO delay.

IF both are true, THEN the shadow will point a couple of degrees away from the Sun - it will point at where the Sun was 8.5 minutes ago, and the Sun isn't there anymore.

and that is what is being contested.

What is being contested is that there is a difference in the time taken to see the Sun (you say this takes zero time); And the time taken to see the light from the Sun cast a shadow (you say this takes 8.5 minutes).

IF such a difference exists, THEN we would see it in our experiment.

If we see the Sun with no delay, then it will be four solar diameters out of line with the shadow. No matter how we manage to see it instantly.

Do you see that, when you do this test?

I never said that we don't see a shadow.

Good. I never suggested that you did.

The test is accurate,

Yes.

but you are missing that this does not prove that the shadow comes from delayed light.

I am not "missing" that; It's one of the things YOU said:

Obviously, light has to travel to reach Earth and cast its shadow on an object that is blocking the sunlight. I am not disputing that.

So, the shadow points to where the Sun was when the light left the Sun to travel to Earth.

So IF you see the shadow in delayed time (as you say is "obvious"), AND you see the Sun in real time, THEN the shadow will be pointing at a spot a couple of degrees away from the Sun.

Is that what you see?

I was wrong about to say it was obvious. I hadn't thought it through.

So, why have you been wasting everybody's time with something you haven't even thought through??

If real time vision is correct, we have to be seeing the shadow in real time as well as the Sun,

Perhaps, but the light that forms that shadow has to have come from the Sun. Are you now saying that light has no maximum speed?

which would not change the experiment to show anything different.

Sure, if light takes zero time to arrive from the Sun, there will be no difference between when we see the Sun, and when we see the light.

But that's a direct contradiction of the claim you were (until just now) supporting.

If you agree that the author was simply wrong when he said that light travels at the speed of light, then that's consistent with our test, and proves that he was wrong about something.

This test says nothing at all about HOW the difference, if any, comes to be; We can worry about that AFTER we demonstrate that there's a difference at all, so right now, we needn't care.

Your claims - real time seeing of the Sun itself, delayed time seeing of the light - can only both be true IF the shadow doesn't point directly at where we see the Sun. Because the Sun is no longer where it was when the light left it.

No, because we would see the Sun instantly as long as the Earth's rotation was in the direction of where the Sun was shining.

Yes, that's your claim: real time seeing of the Sun itself, delayed time seeing of the light.

That small degree of movement of the Sun would not come into play.

Why not??

I was confused earlier

That doesn't appear to be getting any better.

which is why it took quite a bit of thought.

There's not much thought needed.

You claim real time seeing of the Sun itself, delayed time seeing of the light from the Sun.

We agree that the light hitting the post causes the shadow.

Therefore the real time seeing of the Sun will place it two degrees out of alignment with the delayed light hitting the ground either side of the shadow.

This is an unavoidable fact IF both of your claims are true.

Is that what you see?

The test tests ONE THING ONLY - is the delay before seeing the light THE SAME as the delay before seeing the Sun; OR is it DIFFERENT.

Seeing the Sun and seeing the light would be the same in both cases if afferent vision were true because both would be traveling for 8.5 minutes to get here and we would be seeing the shadow and the Sun in delayed time

Correct. And we can test to see if we are seeing them at the same time, or if we are seeing them at different times (one instantly, one delayed) by seeing whether they are both seen in the exact same direction, or whether one is 8.5 minutes of Earth's rotation (ie two degrees of arc) offset from the other.

, but this is exactly what Lessans is disputing.

Yes. So we need to test and see who is right. Reality will judge for us; It is impartial and incorruptible, and it cannot ever be wrong.

If it is true that we see in real time, there is no travel time whatsoever.

Yes, I undertand that that's what you mean by "see in real time".

HOW any differences came about is a question for later, after we have tested whether the difference exists at all.

There would be no difference in what is seen.

Only if the seeing of the Sun and the arrival of the sunlight both take the same amount of time.

Either we see the Sun and the light in real time, and light takes zero seconds to arrive; Or we see the Sun and the light in delayed time, and both take 8.5 minutes.

You contend that we see the Sun in real time, but see the light in delayed time. If that is the case, then we will see the Sun four apparent diameters (2°) out of alignment with the post. Is that what you see?

 

[pood]

The experiment works but it doesn't prove what you think it does (i.e., that we are converting delayed light into an image of the Sun).

The experiment doesn't try to prove that, and what I (or you, or anyone) thinks is irrelevant. All that matters is what we see.

True. What someone thinks is irrelevant, I agree.

The experiment proves that we see the Sun, and the light from the Sun, with exactly the same delay. That's all.

And we would see the same exact thing if the eyes were efferent.

No, we would not, as has been demonstrated.

Yes we would see the same thing. Sorry to disappoint you.

No, we would not. Sorry to disappoint you. As bilby has yet again cogently explained.

 

[DBT]

Light isn't "delayed," it has a speed and travel time. What we see is determined by the information acquired by the eyes and brain at the end of its journey, not at the start.

That's exactly what is being refuted. To just keeping it over and over doesn't prove anything.

The fact that light has a measurable speed proves it. As distance can be calculated, triangulation, etc, travel time can be worked out.

This is not true because I say so, it is verifiable.

Who said light does not have a measurable speed?

Your claim has no means or mechanisms for it to work, it is not verifiable, it has no merit.

You are being stubborn because you refuse to even try to understand why he concluded this.

No, that's not it.

 

[peacegirl]

If we see the Sun in real time, and the light (that casts a shadow when blocked by the post) with an 8.5 minute delay, then the Sun will not line up with the shadow.

This is true no matter how we come to see the Sun; It is solely a consequence of seeing it instantaneously.

No Bilby, that is the very thing being contested. You can't use this as proof to confirm anything.

What are you on about?

The test is solely a way to determine whether we see the Sun with the same delay as the light, or whether we see it instantaneously.

Yes, that's the thing being contested. I am re-stating the problem here.

Do you agree that that's what we are testing for?

The sundial gives us information about the time of day

That's completely irrelevant. We are not using it for that.

Okay

and a shadow will appear if the light is blocked.

Yes.

I think I confused you because I wasn't clear myself.

No shit.

Now that I can discuss this with more clarity, all we can know is that when the earth spins on its axis and the Sun is seen and the shadow is picked up by the sundial's gnomon, this is factual, but it doesn't tell us whether we are seeing in delayed or real time.

Sure it does.

It actually does not give us this information.

We would see the same thing either way.

If we see the Sun in real time, and the shadow in delayed time, what we see will not be the same as if we see both in real time, or both in delayed time.

You were trying to cause a mismatch between light that is delayed to show that the shadow would not show up in real time.

I am not "trying to cause" anything. I am asking you to test your claims.

It can’t be done this way. The mismatch was due to assuming light was delayed and the Sun was not. Of course it would be a mismatch.

That's not how it works because if he is right, we would not be seeing the Sun in delayed time;

True. IF he is right.

therefore, it would be a match

False. IF he is right, we would see the shadow in delayed time, so there would be a mismatch.

and we would see exactly what the shadow casts off as well as the real object (i.e., the Sun).

We would see the shadow cast by the delayed light, pointing to where the Sun WAS 8.5 minutes ago, when that light left the Sun.

It is an assumption by science that we are detecting the Sun's image in the delayed light that was sent to us 8.5 minutes ago

Science doesn't make assumptions.

You agreed that we are seeing the shadow in delayed light.

You are claiming that we see the Sun with NO delay.

IF both are true, THEN the shadow will point a couple of degrees away from the Sun - it will point at where the Sun was 8.5 minutes ago, and the Sun isn't there anymore.

You’re right but again that was my mistake. Real time vision means when we see an object we are seeing it in real time which means no 8.5 minutes of travel time. The only way this makes sense is to understand efferent vision, not the fact that light travels at a high speed.

and that is what is being contested.

What is being contested is that there is a difference in the time taken to see the Sun (you say this takes zero time); And the time taken to see the light from the Sun cast a shadow (you say this takes 8.5 minutes).

IF such a difference exists, THEN we would see it in our experiment.

I was wrong there. It wouldn’t even make sense. Will you forgive my mistake so we can move on or will you hold this against me forever?

If we see the Sun with no delay, then it will be four solar diameters out of line with the shadow. No matter how we manage to see it instantly.

Do you see that, when you do this test?

I never said that we don't see a shadow.

Good. I never suggested that you did.

The test is accurate,

Yes.

but you are missing that this does not prove that the shadow comes from delayed light.

I am not "missing" that; It's one of the things YOU said:

Obviously, light has to travel to reach Earth and cast its shadow on an object that is blocking the sunlight. I am not disputing that.

So, the shadow points to where the Sun was when the light left the Sun to travel to Earth.

So IF you see the shadow in delayed time (as you say is "obvious"), AND you see the Sun in real time, THEN the shadow will be pointing at a spot a couple of degrees away from the Sun.

Is that what you see?

I was wrong about to say it was obvious. I hadn't thought it through.

So, why have you been wasting everybody's time with something you haven't even thought through??

I’m not wasting everybody’s time if they want to be here. I don’t have a gun to their head.

If real time vision is correct, we have to be seeing the shadow in real time as well as the Sun,

Perhaps, but the light that forms that shadow has to have come from the Sun. Are you now saying that light has no maximum speed?

That’s the dispute. The light or the wavelength that allows us to see the Sun is there in real time even though photons are constantly being replaced.

which would not change the experiment to show anything different.

Sure, if light takes zero time to arrive from the Sun, there will be no difference between when we see the Sun, and when we see the light.

But that's a direct contradiction of the claim you were (until just now) supporting.

If you agree that the author was simply wrong when he said that light travels at the speed of light, then that's consistent with our test, and proves that he was wrong about something.

No it doesn’t, not if vision works in the way he described.

This test says nothing at all about HOW the difference, if any, comes to be; We can worry about that AFTER we demonstrate that there's a difference at all, so right now, we needn't care.

Your claims - real time seeing of the Sun itself, delayed time seeing of the light - can only both be true IF the shadow doesn't point directly at where we see the Sun. Because the Sun is no longer where it was when the light left it.

No, because we would see the Sun instantly as long as the Earth's rotation was in the direction of where the Sun was shining.

Yes, that's your claim: real time seeing of the Sun itself, delayed time seeing of the light.

Exactly.

That small degree of movement of the Sun would not come into play.

Why not??

Because it would have nothing to do with the movement of the Sun — however small the movement was, which is still time related —- if what we were seeing was instant the second our gaze was looking in that direction.

I was confused earlier

That doesn't appear to be getting any better.

which is why it took quite a bit of thought.

There's not much thought needed.

You claim real time seeing of the Sun itself, delayed time seeing of the light from the Sun.

We agree that the light hitting the post causes the shadow.

Yes

Therefore the real time seeing of the Sun will place it two degrees out of alignment with the delayed light hitting the ground either side of the shadow.

This is an unavoidable fact IF both of your claims are true.

It would be but I corrected my error.

Is that what you see?

There’s so much confusion here. The light would be at the shadow (not striking it which indicates travel time) at the same time we would see the Sun as long as the Sun’s wavelength was within our field of view due to the Earth’s rotation. IOW, the light would be striking the sundial instantly and we would be seeing the Sun instantly. No travel at all.

The test tests ONE THING ONLY - is the delay before seeing the light THE SAME as the delay before seeing the Sun; OR is it DIFFERENT.

Seeing the Sun and seeing the light would be the same in both cases. In afferent vision we would see the shadow and the Sun in delayed time because light would be traveling for 8.5 minutes to get here. In real time seeing the only difference is that it would be reverse. and we would be seeing the shadow and the Sun in real time. No discrepancies in either position.

Correct. And we can test to see if we are seeing them at the same time, or if we are seeing them at different times (one instantly, one delayed) by seeing whether they are both seen in the exact same direction, or whether one is 8.5 minutes of Earth's rotation (ie two degrees of arc) offset from the other.

That would occur if there was a difference, but that’s when I realized that my account does not see anything in delayed time. My bad.

Yes it would but seeing one instantly and one in delayed time doesn’t make sense. Either we see everything in real time or we see everything in delayed time.

Yes. So we need to test and see who is right. Reality will judge for us; It is impartial and incorruptible, and it cannot ever be wrong.

Absolutely. I am not here as a new earther. I’m here because I think science got it wrong. And I believe in science.

If it is true that we see in real time, there is no travel time whatsoever.

Yes, I undertand that that's what you mean by "see in real time".

I’m glad.

HOW any differences came about is a question for later, after we have tested whether the difference exists at all.

There would be no difference in what is seen.

Only if the seeing of the Sun and the arrival of the sunlight both take the same amount of time.

Either we see the Sun and the light in real time, and light takes zero seconds to arrive; Or we see the Sun and the light in delayed time, and both take 8.5 minutes.

You contend that we see the Sun in real time, but see the light in delayed time. If that is the case, then we will see the Sun four apparent diameters (2°) out of alignment with the post. Is that what you see?

No bilby, I got mixed up. I admit that. It was difficult because I had to understand how this experiment would differ or not from his proposition but after going over it, I realized that there is no 8.5 minutes of delayed time in this account. That’s why there would be no difference in what we would see.

 

[bilby]

"Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second ...

Once again, certain facts have been confused, and all the reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed is completely fallacious."

These are Lessans' own words. He is clearly saying that he agrees that "light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second", though he disputes all other claims from "our scientists" about light and vision.

We have demonstrated by a simple test that the light from the Sun casts a shadow that points directly towards where the Sun was when that light left it. Lessans agrees that this light arrives here 8.5 minutes after it left the Sun, crossing 93 million miles at 186,000 miles a second.

But we know that the Sun is now actually two degrees away from that spot - because the Earth has rotated two degrees in the 8.5 minutes since that light departed from the Sun.

IF we see the Sun in "real time", then it will appear two degrees away from the direction the shadow points.

Does it? @peacegirl, did you check for yourself? I don't want you to take my word for it.

If it does - if we are seeing the shadow in delayed time (as Lessans says we will); And we are seeing the Sun in real time (as Lessans says we do), then both of his claims are consistent with reality.

But if it doesn't - If the Sun appears exactly in line with the shadow - then at least one of his claims is wrong.

 

[bilby]

The mismatch was due to assuming light was delayed and the Sun was not. Of course it would be a mismatch.

Those are not assumptions; They are both explicit claims made by Lessans.

And those claims are what we are testing.

 

[bilby]

There’s so much confusion here: The light would be at the shadow at the same time we would see the Sun as long as the wavelength was within our field of view.

FTFY




You had a period which should have been a colon.

 

[peacegirl]

"Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second ...

Once again, certain facts have been confused, and all the reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed is completely fallacious."

These are Lessans' own words. He is clearly saying that he agrees that "light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second", though he disputes all other claims from "our scientists" about light and vision.

Correct.

We have demonstrated by a simple test that the light from the Sun casts a shadow that points directly towards where the Sun was when that light left it. Lessans agrees that this light arrives here 8.5 minutes after it left the Sun, crossing 93 million miles at 186,000 miles a second.

The Sun does cast a shadow but not necessarily after 8.5 minutes.

But we know that the Sun is now actually two degrees away from that spot - because the Earth has rotated two degrees in the 8.5 minutes since that light departed from the Sun.

What if the Earth's rotation in that 2 degrees has nothing to do with the 8.5 minutes the light departed from the Sun? Is it not possible that this is a conclusion drawn that earth's movement by 2 degrees and seeing the Sun are not due to the departure of light from the Sun at all? What if the Earth moved only one degree? Would it still take 8.5 minutes?

4 minutes

how long does it take to see a shadow on a sundial if the Sun moves one degree from the previous degree?​

The time it takes to see a shadow on a sundial as the Sun moves one degree from the previous degree is 4 minutes. This is because the Sun takes 4 minutes to cover one degree of the sky. The sundial's shadow will move across the hour lines at a consistent rate, allowing users to estimate the time of day based on the position of the shadow.

Border Sundials

IF we see the Sun in "real time", then it will appear two degrees away from the direction the shadow points.

We could see the sun in real time and the Sun still be seen two degrees away from that spot as the Earth rotates without it being the result of an 8.5 minute delay.

Does it? @peacegirl, did you check for yourself? I don't want you to take my word for it.

If it does - if we are seeing the shadow in delayed time (as Lessans says we will); And we are seeing the Sun in real time (as Lessans says we do), then both of his claims are consistent with reality.

Why do you keep saying this when I told you this is not what Lessans said?

But if it doesn't - If the Sun appears exactly in line with the shadow - then at least one of his claims is wrong.

That wasn't his claim, so you are being disingenuous to keep saying it was.

 

[peacegirl]

There’s so much confusion here: The light would be at the shadow at the same time we would see the Sun as long as the wavelength was within our field of view.

FTFY




You had a period which should have been a colon.

Think of seeing the object in real time because the mirror image is at our retina instantly. So instead of this wavelength traveling through space and time ad infinitum, it is right there in real time as the lens of our eyes, telescope, or camera focus on the object itself, not the light. Does that help?