If you highlighted where he shows anything about experiments that prove we see in delayed vision, I would read it.
We already gave you an avalanche of information at FF that shows we see in delayed time. You ignored it.
If you can recall just one, please post it here.
Please highlight that proves we see in delayed time. Thank you.
Unless and until you understand the basics of what light is, and how it interacts with matter, you cannot understand any such demonstration.
I don't have to. It's not a prerequisite because it's not about light. it's about the eyes and brain and how they begin to focus to see what it is they are experiencing due to the stimulation of the other senses.
Wrong.
That's not an answer.
When you start with the confident claim "mark my words, it will not show what you want it to show. That’s how sure I am.", you eliminate any chance of ever understanding.
Fortunately, reality doesn't care one whit if you remain wrong, and nobody else has to care either. It's a free world; You can be as wrong as you want, for as long as you want.
Reality may not care one whit if I or you remain wrong, but wouldn't you want to know if you were wrong? I would want to know too.
That’s exactly what you DON’T want to know.
Ad hom.
I just don't think he was. We all just want to know the truth. We are learning new things everyday about ourselves and our world. This discovery just happens to be a big one.
No. It’s not a discovery.
Yes, it really is, and you can't change what is because you don't like it
If you choose to change that, you could start with Newton's Optiks; That's where humanity at large started. Or you could skip to the end, and read
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (though that one isn't readily available online free of charge).
It will
We are all just looking for answers.
Except for you.
The animosity really doesn't serve anyone.
Ad hom.
Your problem here seems to be twofold: You refuse to consider the possibility that you are wrong;
Why should I say he could have been wrong if I truly think he was right? Maybe it sounds arrogant, but I don't mean it to be.
Modal fallacy.
I think he was right, so to satisfy you, I don't have to say I think he could have been wrong. I want to know the truth, just as much as anyone. You are the one that won't even consider that science may have gotten it wrong in this instance.
And you expect to be able to understand complex subjects without putting in any particuar effort.
I have made lots of effort.
He meant make an effort to understand Newton. You didn’t. It was “too long” for you to read.
I'm not going to read tomes of content that, although interesting, have nothing to do with his claim. Furthermore, bilby won't even read a small excerpt that I posted because he doesn't think it's necessary. Um, you can't discuss something with any credibility without reading what it is you are opposing.
People who understand his observations will either reject it or try to confirm it.
Everybody everywhere has rejected it, and it was experimentally ruled out hundreds of years ago.
People here? People in FF? No, it was not ruled out and if it was, it probably was because of the same reasons you reject it. You think that light could not be at the eye if it didn't get here.
We've been inculcated with this belief for so long that it must feel blasphemous to even suggest that science may not have gotten it right.
“Blasphemy” and “science” have nothing to do with each other. Science is not religion, and scientific findings are always under challenge.
You are not doing what science claims to stand for; give the author the courtesy of seeing if he was right. What were his observations Pood? Show me where dogs can recognize their human partners from a computer screen with no other cues, or from a picture, or from a statue. The lightwaves should be reaching their eyes and recognition should be immediate. Don't try to twist a circle to fit into a squire to make it appear that dogs can do this, like in the lever experiment. This is not a non sequitur if you understood why he brought it up. It relates. That's why I wonder if you understand what he demonstrated. You just keep saying that he's wrong and he's been proven wrong. I'm waiting for that proof.
If the author was wrong, so be it, but so far no experiments have actually proven that we see in delayed time.
Yes, they do, great big shit tons of them dating back hundreds of years.
They show light traveling and they show that we need light to see, and they've assumed (due to what appears to be the only logical answer) the lightwaves that produce the images to reach our eyes take time to get here, but they have not shown the direction we see (it's just more of the same logic), which changes delayed to real time seeing.
The logic that light travels and therefore it takes time to get to our eyes has made this theory feel airtight. But science has gotten certain things wrong, although it's a rarity. This book is science based.
It is the opposite of science.
You're wrong and you're not being fair at all.
Either one will inevitably result in abject ignorance.
Yep. Who that is is yet to be determined.
It’s you.
Ignorance is when something is not understood. I understand his observations and reasoning. Please explain what you understand because this discussion on light and sight is not getting anywhere, and it never iwll if you keep repeating that he's wrong without proof. No amount of repetition is going to change what is, and no amount of repetition is going to change the fact that man's will is not free -- and free will of any kind is a delusion.
This is for those who although are skeptical, are keeping an open mind.
Please remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your understanding for recognition and development.
www.newscientist.com
