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'
Says Pood who hasn't shown me where his claim in any of his books are contradictory and where he lies about me changing the text.
I have shown where they the contradictory, and the two texts posted side by side proves the relevant passage was changed.
The passages were not changed and they are not contradictory. These are the 3 books, other than my version, that mentioned seeing the Sun instantly. I don't think he was as clear as he could have been in his 1970 version, but the remaining two books clarified what he meant. There is no disputing this Pood, so please stop harping on it and telling me that he didn't mean what he obviously did mean.
The Secret 1970:
“Focusing takes place for the first time when sense experience (hearing, taste, touch and smell — these are doorways in) awakens the brain, which then focuses the eyes so that the child can look through them, as binoculars, at what exists around him. The eyes are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained, not by what comes in on the waves of light that strike the optic nerve but by what is looked at in relation to sense experience. This is an efferent experience, the other an afferent experience. In other words, if we on earth were living in total darkness because God had not yet turned on
the light of the sun, but we knew that he planned to flip the switch at 12 noon, it is true we would not be able to see it
(he meant the light of the Sun, not the Sun itself) until 8 minutes later because there would not be any light until then since it is traveling towards us at a high rate of speed. But once the light is here, it is here because the photons of light, emitted by the constant energy of the sun, surround us. When the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side. When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again, this does not mean that it takes another 8 minutes for this light to reach us because these photons are surrounding us.
And if the sun were to explode while we were looking at it, we would see it the instant it happened, not 8 minutes later. The reason we are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., is not because one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the last many light years away, but simply because these objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present. To put this another way and paraphrase your quotation: ‘If we could sit upon the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused upon the earth, we would be able to see the very same things going on right now that everybody else sees. This fallacy has come into existence because the eyes were considered a sense organ like the ears. Because it takes longer for the sound from an airplane to reach our ears when it is five thousand feet away than a thousand, it was assumed that the same thing occurred with the object sending a picture of itself on the wings of light.”
Beyond the Framework of Modern Thought 1976:
In fact, if someone on Rigel had a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very moment, he would see me at the exact time that you would, sitting right next to me, which brings us to another very interesting point.
If I couldn’t see you standing right next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had not yet been turned on, but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12 noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly, at that very moment, although we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a large star, the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that their light diminishes before it gets to us. We don’t need light around us to see the stars, nor would we need light around us to see the sun turned on at 12 noon. To sum this up – just as we have often observed that a drum corps is marching out of step to the beat when seen from a distance, because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been taken, so likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope and hear his voice on radio, we would see his lips move instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later, simply because the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is an electric image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this distance. But let me prove in still another way that the eyes are not a sense organ.
This is an Urgent Message From a Visitor to Your Planet 1988:
Your scientists, taking for granted that five senses are an undeniable fact and becoming enthralled over the discovery that light travels at a high rate of speed, made the statement that still exists in your encyclopedias: “If we could sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the Earth, we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching America for the very first time.” They made the assumption that since the eyes are a sense organ, it is obvious that light must reflect an electric image of everything it touches, which then travels through space and impinges on the optic nerve. But why the telescope? Let me show you where certain facts have been confused, and all the reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed is completely fallacious.
The sound from a plane, even though you can’t see it, will tell you it is in the sky, but why can’t you see it if an image is being reflected towards the eyes on the waves of light? An image is not being reflected. You can’t see the plane simply because the distance has reduced its size to the point where it is impossible to see it with the naked eye. You can’t see bacteria with the naked eye, but you can with a microscope. The reason you are able to see the moon is simply because there is enough light present and it is large enough to be seen. The reason the sun looks to be the size of the moon, although much larger, is simply because it is much farther away, as if you didn’t know this, which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a planet trillions of miles away. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time because images are not traveling towards the optic nerve on waves of light. However, this is not the same as transmitted messages that travel through space and are picked up by your ears. This means that it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant stars. In fact, if someone on Rigel had a telescope powerful enough to see a golf tournament, he would see it at the exact same time that you would, which brings up another very interesting observation.
If you couldn’t see me standing right next to you because we were living in total darkness because the sun had not yet been turned on, but God was scheduled to flip the switch at noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly, at that very moment, although we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes afterwards. The sun at noon would look exactly like a large star. To sum this up, just as you often observe that a drum corps is marching out of step to the beat when seen from a distance because the sound reaches your ears after a step has been taken, likewise, if you could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope and hear his voice on the radio, you would see his lips move instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later. But let me prove in yet another way that the eyes are not a sense organ.
Line up 50 people who will remain motionless, and a dog, from a slight distance, cannot identify his master. If an image is traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic nerve, then he would recognize his master instantly, as he can from sound and smell. In fact, if he were vicious and trained to attack any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his two senses — hearing and smell — were turned off, he would have no way of identifying his master and would attack, even if every part of his master’s body and clothes were lit up like a Christmas tree. That is why a dog cannot identify his master from a picture or statue, which raises the question: why can man accomplish this? The answer will be given shortly.
