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.
Says the person who has stated she rejects the theory of relativity.
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. 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? Do you understand why man's will is not free, or are you just a run of the mill skeptic?
The problem is that he is wrong.
Says bilby who is now the arbiter of truth.
He never said he was the arbiter of truth. It is you who are saying that the author, with his daft ranting, 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.
There is no version to test. You have offered no explanatory model of how this nutty idea is supposed to work. We see, because something is “big enough, and bright enough, to be seen” is NOT an explanatory model.
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. It's the same thing here. 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. 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.
No, Galileo had an empirical demonstration that he was right. You’ve got nothing, just a daft, empty claim'
