pood
Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 6,774
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
It's apparent motion is about 0.25 degrees per minute. In 8.5 minutes, it moves a bit more than two degrees (8.5 x 0.25 = 2.125). The sun's disk as seen from Earth is about 0.5° in diameter, so in 8.5 minutes, it moves about four times its diameter.As far as I read, the Sun moves 0.25 degrees every 8.5 minutes.Why not? Explain to me exactly what part of it is wrong, and why.Bilby, it doesn't fly. Not in the slightest.
Not hints, insinuations and denials; Highlight for me what you think doesn't apply, and tell me why it doesn't:
Here's how it works:At any time during the day, when the sun is unobscured by cloud and shadows are cast, we can see that the Sun appears to move across the sky at roughly four times its own diameter every eight minutes. The shadows it casts "move" across the ground at the same angular velocity. That's how a sundial works - a sundial shows how the Sun appears to move across the sky at a steady rate that matches the rotation of the Earth.If you stand near a post, building or other structure, theres a spot you can be in where Sun can be 'hidden' behind that object, so that you can't see it. Lets pick a telegraph or power pole (you could use a tree or a shed, or whatever, if you prefer, as long as it's tall enough and thin enough that there's somewhere to stand where the Sun is only just hidden behind the pole).Pick a spot to stand, facing the Sun, far enough back so that the Sun is only just blocked by the pole - so that if you move even the tiniest bit to either side, you will see the edge of the Sun.Now, the ground at your feet is illuminated on either side by sunlight that left the Sun eight and a half minutes ago. The shadow is pointing directly at where the Sun was when that light left the Sun - if it wasn't, the shadow wouldn't be where it is.But the Sun has moved since that light left it. It is eight and a half minutes, or four solar diameters, further along its apparent path across the sky than it was when it sent out that light.
Assuming that you accept my minor correction to your arithmetic, yes.This means that during the Earth's rotation, the Sun's apparent position changes by this amount in that time frame.
What is? The apparent motion of the Sun across a given period of time? Yes. The direction from which the sunlight is arriving at any particular instant? Also yes.That is what is being observed using a sundial.
Yes.You say the Sun moved since that light left it,
No. That's due to the continuous movement of the Earth/Sun system. It's a thing that's happening, but it's not relevant here, because our experiment is a single point observation - we are looking at the post, the Sun, and the shadow at a single point in time. You could take a photograph of the setup and use that to make all the same observations my experiment entails; No time need pass for any of it to work exactly as I described.which is why different parts of the day show a different shadow,
It does "prove" (I would say "demonstrate") that we are observing the Sun in delayed time. Movement is totally irrelevant.but this does not prove that we are observing the Sun's movement in delayed time.
Yup.Sundials do show new shadows every 8.5 minutes as the Earth rotates. This is because the Earth rotates approximately 360 degrees in 24 hours, which means the sun's apparent position changes at a predictable rate. As the sun moves across the sky, the shadow cast by the gnomon on the sundial also moves, allowing it to indicate the time of day accurately.
sundialsoc.org.uk
Because the light is illuminating your surroundings.I'm not sure how an 8.5-minute delay where light travels to Earth disproves seeing in real time if it's not the light that is carrying the image.So, if we see the Sun instantly, with no delay, then we should see it, four 'pole widths' to one side of the pole, while we are standing in the shadow; And when we stand so that the Sun is exactly blocked by the pole, we should be in sunlight, with the shadow falling off to one side, four times it's own width counter-clockwise from where we are standing.That's an unavoidable result, IF we see the Sun instantly, but see the light reflect off the ground only after that eight and a half minute delay. The spot where the Sun is completely obscured from view should, according to your hypothesis, be outside the shadow cast by the post.
You haven't made an argument. You've just introduced an irrelevant observation about how sundials tell time, and then handwaved that somehow this might explain something you didn't clearly set out.That's the only argument;
I wouldn't object if you did; There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. My problem is that you are not being explicit or precise in your argument, which means you are not arguing at all, so much as flailing around looking for some hook to hang your preconceptions on.everything else is exactly how science describes. I'm not arguing with all of science.
I'm not sure how an 8.5-minute delay where light travels to Earth disproves seeing in real time if it's not the light that is carrying the image.
That's totally irrelevant right now; We are currently looking only at whether he was right or wrong in this one specific claim; And we are using only objective observations, that anyone can make for themselves, to do that.It upsets me that people must think this author was crazy, but he wasn't.
Reality doesn't care what anyone believes, and nor do I.I believe that sundials work exactly as you describe.This is an observation that is directly implied by your hypothesis. If you are right, then the above is exactly what we must see. It's also not what we actually observe, if and when we do the experiment. Don't take my word for it - do the experiment for yourself. Anyone can, on any sunny day.
We do.We also know that it takes 8.5 minutes for light from the Sun to reach Earth.
That single fact alone doesn't, no. But my explicit and detailed experiment does. Can you point out an error in it?But that does not in any way disprove that what we see is in real time.
Comfort is not at issue here. Just logic, observation, and reality.I know this claim must be uncomfortable for many people. I really don't mean to disturb anyone's comfort.![]()
I never said that light doesn't have a velocity and travel time from an object to the eye, but it is a false conclusion that, as a result, we see the object in delayed time. This is a fallacy and the sundial experiment did nothing to prove real time vision wrong. Everything would work in the same way whether it would be in delayed or real time so it's not a good test.It does fly. There is no doubt that light has a velocity and travel time from an object to the eye, which is the time lag between emission and acquisition and the reason why we see things as they were at the moment of emission.
![]()
How a Sundial Works (And Why You Need One in Your Backyard)
Let’s step back in time to examine what makes sundials, the original time-keeping devices, tick.theslenderwrist.com
This observation did not come from astronomy. That is why I can't answer your question to your satisfaction. What I do know (believe,As far as I read, the Sun moves 0.25 degrees every 8.5 minutes. This means that during the Earth's rotation, the Sun's apparent position changes by this amount in that time frame. That is what is being observed using a sundial. You say the Sun moved since that light left it, which is why different parts of the day show a different shadow, but this does not prove that we are observing the Sun's movement in delayed time.Why not? Explain to me exactly what part of it is wrong, and why.Bilby, it doesn't fly. Not in the slightest.
Not hints, insinuations and denials; Highlight for me what you think doesn't apply, and tell me why it doesn't:
Here's how it works:At any time during the day, when the sun is unobscured by cloud and shadows are cast, we can see that the Sun appears to move across the sky at roughly four times its own diameter every eight minutes. The shadows it casts "move" across the ground at the same angular velocity. That's how a sundial works - a sundial shows how the Sun appears to move across the sky at a steady rate that matches the rotation of the Earth.If you stand near a post, building or other structure, theres a spot you can be in where Sun can be 'hidden' behind that object, so that you can't see it. Lets pick a telegraph or power pole (you could use a tree or a shed, or whatever, if you prefer, as long as it's tall enough and thin enough that there's somewhere to stand where the Sun is only just hidden behind the pole).Pick a spot to stand, facing the Sun, far enough back so that the Sun is only just blocked by the pole - so that if you move even the tiniest bit to either side, you will see the edge of the Sun.Now, the ground at your feet is illuminated on either side by sunlight that left the Sun eight and a half minutes ago. The shadow is pointing directly at where the Sun was when that light left the Sun - if it wasn't, the shadow wouldn't be where it is.But the Sun has moved since that light left it. It is eight and a half minutes, or four solar diameters, further along its apparent path across the sky than it was when it sent out that light.
Sundials do show new shadows every 8.5 minutes as the Earth rotates. This is because the Earth rotates approximately 360 degrees in 24 hours, which means the sun's apparent position changes at a predictable rate. As the sun moves across the sky, the shadow cast by the gnomon on the sundial also moves, allowing it to indicate the time of day accurately.
sundialsoc.org.uk
I'm not sure how an 8.5-minute delay where light travels to Earth disproves seeing in real time if it's not the light that is carrying the image. That's the only argument; everything else is exactly how science describes. I'm not arguing with all of science. It upsets me that people must think this author was crazy, but he wasn't.So, if we see the Sun instantly, with no delay, then we should see it, four 'pole widths' to one side of the pole, while we are standing in the shadow; And when we stand so that the Sun is exactly blocked by the pole, we should be in sunlight, with the shadow falling off to one side, four times it's own width counter-clockwise from where we are standing.That's an unavoidable result, IF we see the Sun instantly, but see the light reflect off the ground only after that eight and a half minute delay. The spot where the Sun is completely obscured from view should, according to your hypothesis, be outside the shadow cast by the post.
I believe that sundials work exactly as you describe. We also know that it takes 8.5 minutes for light from the Sun to reach Earth. But that does not in any way disprove that what we see is in real time. I know this claim must be uncomfortable for many people. I really don't mean to disturb anyone's comfort.This is an observation that is directly implied by your hypothesis. If you are right, then the above is exactly what we must see. It's also not what we actually observe, if and when we do the experiment. Don't take my word for it - do the experiment for yourself. Anyone can, on any sunny day.![]()
You are not disturbing anyone’s comfort, peacegirl. You are, OTOH, making a total fool of yourself.
I get that. Thanks.I never said that light doesn't have a velocity and travel time from an object to the eye, but it is a false conclusion that, as a result, we see the object in delayed time. This is a fallacy and the sundial experiment did nothing to prove real time vision wrong. Everything would work in the same way whether it would be in delayed or real time so it's not a good test.It does fly. There is no doubt that light has a velocity and travel time from an object to the eye, which is the time lag between emission and acquisition and the reason why we see things as they were at the moment of emission.
![]()
How a Sundial Works (And Why You Need One in Your Backyard)
Let’s step back in time to examine what makes sundials, the original time-keeping devices, tick.theslenderwrist.com
How a sundial works doesn’t negate the fact of light emission, distance and travel time. The sun is shining and its apparent position as the earth rotates casts a shadow on the dial, that's all.
No, both cannot be correct. Can you not read properly?This observation did not come from astronomy. That is why I can't answer your question to your satisfaction. What I do know (believe,As far as I read, the Sun moves 0.25 degrees every 8.5 minutes. This means that during the Earth's rotation, the Sun's apparent position changes by this amount in that time frame. That is what is being observed using a sundial. You say the Sun moved since that light left it, which is why different parts of the day show a different shadow, but this does not prove that we are observing the Sun's movement in delayed time.Why not? Explain to me exactly what part of it is wrong, and why.Bilby, it doesn't fly. Not in the slightest.
Not hints, insinuations and denials; Highlight for me what you think doesn't apply, and tell me why it doesn't:
Here's how it works:At any time during the day, when the sun is unobscured by cloud and shadows are cast, we can see that the Sun appears to move across the sky at roughly four times its own diameter every eight minutes. The shadows it casts "move" across the ground at the same angular velocity. That's how a sundial works - a sundial shows how the Sun appears to move across the sky at a steady rate that matches the rotation of the Earth.If you stand near a post, building or other structure, theres a spot you can be in where Sun can be 'hidden' behind that object, so that you can't see it. Lets pick a telegraph or power pole (you could use a tree or a shed, or whatever, if you prefer, as long as it's tall enough and thin enough that there's somewhere to stand where the Sun is only just hidden behind the pole).Pick a spot to stand, facing the Sun, far enough back so that the Sun is only just blocked by the pole - so that if you move even the tiniest bit to either side, you will see the edge of the Sun.Now, the ground at your feet is illuminated on either side by sunlight that left the Sun eight and a half minutes ago. The shadow is pointing directly at where the Sun was when that light left the Sun - if it wasn't, the shadow wouldn't be where it is.But the Sun has moved since that light left it. It is eight and a half minutes, or four solar diameters, further along its apparent path across the sky than it was when it sent out that light.
Sundials do show new shadows every 8.5 minutes as the Earth rotates. This is because the Earth rotates approximately 360 degrees in 24 hours, which means the sun's apparent position changes at a predictable rate. As the sun moves across the sky, the shadow cast by the gnomon on the sundial also moves, allowing it to indicate the time of day accurately.
sundialsoc.org.uk
I'm not sure how an 8.5-minute delay where light travels to Earth disproves seeing in real time if it's not the light that is carrying the image. That's the only argument; everything else is exactly how science describes. I'm not arguing with all of science. It upsets me that people must think this author was crazy, but he wasn't.So, if we see the Sun instantly, with no delay, then we should see it, four 'pole widths' to one side of the pole, while we are standing in the shadow; And when we stand so that the Sun is exactly blocked by the pole, we should be in sunlight, with the shadow falling off to one side, four times it's own width counter-clockwise from where we are standing.That's an unavoidable result, IF we see the Sun instantly, but see the light reflect off the ground only after that eight and a half minute delay. The spot where the Sun is completely obscured from view should, according to your hypothesis, be outside the shadow cast by the post.
I believe that sundials work exactly as you describe. We also know that it takes 8.5 minutes for light from the Sun to reach Earth. But that does not in any way disprove that what we see is in real time. I know this claim must be uncomfortable for many people. I really don't mean to disturb anyone's comfort.This is an observation that is directly implied by your hypothesis. If you are right, then the above is exactly what we must see. It's also not what we actually observe, if and when we do the experiment. Don't take my word for it - do the experiment for yourself. Anyone can, on any sunny day.![]()
You are not disturbing anyone’s comfort, peacegirl. You are, OTOH, making a total fool of yourself.
) is that observing the Sun as it moves across the sky can be seen in real time, while the shadow seen on a sundial is also correct. Did you read anything he wrote on the subject? Do you know what his reasoning was?
You keep saying it takes 8.5 minutes for the photons to get here, but they are already here. It's the position of the Earth that causes the shadow as the Sun moves across the sky. I'm trying to understand what you're saying, but it's hard because this is not my expertise, and it doesn't have to be for him to be right.It's apparent motion is about 0.25 degrees per minute. In 8.5 minutes, it moves a bit more than two degrees (8.5 x 0.25 = 2.125). The sun's disk as seen from Earth is about 0.5° in diameter, so in 8.5 minutes, it moves about four times its diameter.As far as I read, the Sun moves 0.25 degrees every 8.5 minutes.Why not? Explain to me exactly what part of it is wrong, and why.Bilby, it doesn't fly. Not in the slightest.
Not hints, insinuations and denials; Highlight for me what you think doesn't apply, and tell me why it doesn't:
Here's how it works:At any time during the day, when the sun is unobscured by cloud and shadows are cast, we can see that the Sun appears to move across the sky at roughly four times its own diameter every eight minutes. The shadows it casts "move" across the ground at the same angular velocity. That's how a sundial works - a sundial shows how the Sun appears to move across the sky at a steady rate that matches the rotation of the Earth.If you stand near a post, building or other structure, theres a spot you can be in where Sun can be 'hidden' behind that object, so that you can't see it. Lets pick a telegraph or power pole (you could use a tree or a shed, or whatever, if you prefer, as long as it's tall enough and thin enough that there's somewhere to stand where the Sun is only just hidden behind the pole).Pick a spot to stand, facing the Sun, far enough back so that the Sun is only just blocked by the pole - so that if you move even the tiniest bit to either side, you will see the edge of the Sun.Now, the ground at your feet is illuminated on either side by sunlight that left the Sun eight and a half minutes ago. The shadow is pointing directly at where the Sun was when that light left the Sun - if it wasn't, the shadow wouldn't be where it is.But the Sun has moved since that light left it. It is eight and a half minutes, or four solar diameters, further along its apparent path across the sky than it was when it sent out that light.
Assuming that you accept my minor correction to your arithmetic, yes.This means that during the Earth's rotation, the Sun's apparent position changes by this amount in that time frame.
What is? The apparent motion of the Sun across a given period of time? Yes. The direction from which the sunlight is arriving at any particular instant? Also yes.That is what is being observed using a sundial.
The first observation is important to people who want to know roughly what time it is. But we don't care about that.
It's the second observation we are interested in here.
Yes.You say the Sun moved since that light left it,
No. That's due to the continuous movement of the Earth/Sun system. It's a thing that's happening, but it's not relevant here, because our experiment is a single point observation - we are looking at the post, the Sun, and the shadow at a single point in time. You could take a photograph of the setup and use that to make all the same observations my experiment entails; No time need pass for any of it to work exactly as I described.which is why different parts of the day show a different shadow,
It does "prove" (I would say "demonstrate") that we are observing the Sun in delayed time. Movement is totally irrelevant.but this does not prove that we are observing the Sun's movement in delayed time.
Yup.Sundials do show new shadows every 8.5 minutes as the Earth rotates. This is because the Earth rotates approximately 360 degrees in 24 hours, which means the sun's apparent position changes at a predictable rate. As the sun moves across the sky, the shadow cast by the gnomon on the sundial also moves, allowing it to indicate the time of day accurately.
sundialsoc.org.uk
Because the light is illuminating your surroundings.I'm not sure how an 8.5-minute delay where light travels to Earth disproves seeing in real time if it's not the light that is carrying the image.So, if we see the Sun instantly, with no delay, then we should see it, four 'pole widths' to one side of the pole, while we are standing in the shadow; And when we stand so that the Sun is exactly blocked by the pole, we should be in sunlight, with the shadow falling off to one side, four times it's own width counter-clockwise from where we are standing.That's an unavoidable result, IF we see the Sun instantly, but see the light reflect off the ground only after that eight and a half minute delay. The spot where the Sun is completely obscured from view should, according to your hypothesis, be outside the shadow cast by the post.
As it took 8.5 minutes to arrive, it is arriving from a direction 2° offset from the actual direction of the Sun.
If we see the Sun "in real time", it will be seen in a different direction from the direction in which the shadow points.
Only if we see the Sun with the exact same delay as we see the illumination of the ground, will the shadow point directly in line with the place where we see the Sun.
You haven't made an argument. You've just introduced an irrelevant observation about how sundials tell time, and then handwaved that somehow this might explain something you didn't clearly set out.That's the only argument;
This is not my lane, granted. This is not where his observations came from. If he is right, then astronomers have to rethink their theory about light and sight.I wouldn't object if you did; There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. My problem is that you are not being explicit or precise in your argument, which means you are not arguing at all, so much as flailing around looking for some hook to hang your preconceptions on.everything else is exactly how science describes. I'm not arguing with all of science.
Be precise. Be explicit. Say exactly what you mean, and give your audience a path to follow, step by step, from your observations to your conclusion.
This is no good:
I'm not sure how an 8.5-minute delay where light travels to Earth disproves seeing in real time if it's not the light that is carrying the image. What is confusing to me is the 8.5 minute delay.
If you are not sure, then go through the steps one at a time, and find the point where understanding breaks down.
It might be my conclusion, but it comes from astute observation. I am not searching for proof for my pre-existing beliefs. Either the proof is there or it's not.And don't assume anything in advance. "if it's not the light that is carrying the image" is the claim under question. You cannot use it as a foundation for your argument, because it's your conclusion. That phrase takes you from a scientific analysis of the world, and puts you instead into a faith based search for proof of your pre-existing beliefs.
Again, the 8.5 minute delay is confusing the issue because it makes it seem that we are waiting for the light to arrive. But it is already there at as the earth rotates and allows the shadow to appear. There is no delay.That's totally irrelevant right now; We are currently looking only at whether he was right or wrong in this one specific claim; And we are using only objective observations, that anyone can make for themselves, to do that.It upsets me that people must think this author was crazy, but he wasn't.
True. Reality is what it is.Reality doesn't care what anyone believes, and nor do I.I believe that sundials work exactly as you describe.This is an observation that is directly implied by your hypothesis. If you are right, then the above is exactly what we must see. It's also not what we actually observe, if and when we do the experiment. Don't take my word for it - do the experiment for yourself. Anyone can, on any sunny day.
But once again this delay that you say is occurring, is problematic.We do.We also know that it takes 8.5 minutes for light from the Sun to reach Earth.
No, I don't see an error. It obviously works because the sundial doesn't lie. The thing I am wondering about is the calculation of time delay.That single fact alone doesn't, no. But my explicit and detailed experiment does. Can you point out an error in it?But that does not in any way disprove that what we see is in real time.
You are right about that. That is why I hope you will try to understand his first discovery regarding determinism. He even said that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. He would be the first person to concede if he, for one second, thought he was wrong.Comfort is not at issue here. Just logic, observation, and reality.I know this claim must be uncomfortable for many people. I really don't mean to disturb anyone's comfort.![]()
If the way reality is makes anyone uncomfortable, then they will just have to learn to live with discomfort, because reality won't change to accommodate them.
Yes, but they left the Sun 8.5 minutes ago. So they aren't coming from the direction of where the Sun is now, they are coming from where it was 8.5 minutes ago.You keep saying it takes 8.5 minutes for the photons to get here, but they are already here.
This goes right back to the original disputation which argues that we are not seeing light that was 8.5 minutes ago, but light that is here in the present. You’re assuming that we would see the Sun in the past if the Sun hadn’t changed position. There’s a big disconnect here.Yes, but they left the Sun 8.5 minutes ago. So they aren't coming from the direction of where the Sun is now, they are coming from where it was 8.5 minutes ago.You keep saying it takes 8.5 minutes for the photons to get here, but they are already here.
It is obviously true that the light is from 8.5 minutes ago and it also is true that the shadow is seen only when the light gets here, but it is not true that we would see the Sun’s shadow in the present. How could we when the Sun has moved within that time frame (8.5 minutes) in real time as the Earth is spinning? The conclusion drawn that we are seeing the past from this respectable and time-honored instrument doesn’t pan out. I know you won’t accept my interpretation and that’s okay. I’m just glad you’re being civil.So if we are seeing the Sun where it is now, it's won't be in line with the shadow.
It will only be in line with the shadow if we are seeing it where it was 8.5 minutes ago, when the photons left it.
This goes right back to the original disputation which argues that we are not seeing light that was 8.5 minutes ago, but light that is here in the present. You’re assuming that we would see the Sun in the past if the Sun hadn’t changed position. There’s a big disconnect here.Yes, but they left the Sun 8.5 minutes ago. So they aren't coming from the direction of where the Sun is now, they are coming from where it was 8.5 minutes ago.You keep saying it takes 8.5 minutes for the photons to get here, but they are already here.
It is obviously true that the light is from 8.5 minutes ago and it also is true that the shadow is seen only when the light gets here, but it is not true that we would see the Sun’s shadow in the present. How could we when the Sun has moved within that time frame (8.5 minutes) in real time as the Earth is spinning? The conclusion drawn that we are seeing the past from this respectable and time-honored instrument doesn’t pan out. I know you won’t accept my interpretation and that’s okay. I’m just glad you’re being civil.So if we are seeing the Sun where it is now, it's won't be in line with the shadow.
It will only be in line with the shadow if we are seeing it where it was 8.5 minutes ago, when the photons left it.
But if we are seeing the reflection in real time, it won’t show this. The only way to compare apples to apples in any fair way is to understand his observations, which people are reluctant to do.This goes right back to the original disputation which argues that we are not seeing light that was 8.5 minutes ago, but light that is here in the present. You’re assuming that we would see the Sun in the past if the Sun hadn’t changed position. There’s a big disconnect here.Yes, but they left the Sun 8.5 minutes ago. So they aren't coming from the direction of where the Sun is now, they are coming from where it was 8.5 minutes ago.You keep saying it takes 8.5 minutes for the photons to get here, but they are already here.
It is obviously true that the light is from 8.5 minutes ago and it also is true that the shadow is seen only when the light gets here, but it is not true that we would see the Sun’s shadow in the present. How could we when the Sun has moved within that time frame (8.5 minutes) in real time as the Earth is spinning? The conclusion drawn that we are seeing the past from this respectable and time-honored instrument doesn’t pan out. I know you won’t accept my interpretation and that’s okay. I’m just glad you’re being civil.So if we are seeing the Sun where it is now, it's won't be in line with the shadow.
It will only be in line with the shadow if we are seeing it where it was 8.5 minutes ago, when the photons left it.
Because we are seeing the sun as it was 8.5 minutes ago doesn't mean we are seeing the objects around us as they were 8.5 minutes ago. We see the sundial, trees, people, etc, in the time it takes for the light to reflect off them and be acquired by the eyes and processed by the brain, which is milliseconds.
He is clearly wrong on the matter of instant vision/ light at the eye. In relation to the physics of light and eye and brain function, it doesn't even make sense. So the idea is being asserted without evidence or explanation of how it may work and indisputable evidence against it.
That is why anyone with even a basic understanding of physics rejects the claim.
Who said he didn't have evidence?He is clearly wrong on the matter of instant vision/ light at the eye. In relation to the physics of light and eye and brain function, it doesn't even make sense. So the idea is being asserted without evidence or explanation of how it may work and indisputable evidence against it.
It doesn't make sense to you because you believe that light bounces off of objects and carries the images (or wavelengths) to the eye and then interpreted in the brain, which is logical. But logic is not proof. Physics is correct that light travels 186,000 miles a second, but this is as far as it goes. It is impossible for you to respond objectively when you don't even know what his observations were. You don't even seem to have the desire to see if his claim has any validity because you are so sure that it doesn't. That is not science, sorry.That is why anyone with even a basic understanding of physics rejects the claim.
He is clearly wrong on the matter of instant vision/ light at the eye. In relation to the physics of light and eye and brain function, it doesn't even make sense. So the idea is being asserted without evidence or explanation of how it may work and indisputable evidence against it.
That is why anyone with even a basic understanding of physics rejects the claim.Who said he didn't have evidence?He is clearly wrong on the matter of instant vision/ light at the eye. In relation to the physics of light and eye and brain function, it doesn't even make sense. So the idea is being asserted without evidence or explanation of how it may work and indisputable evidence against it.
What evidence is there for instant vision?
Srsly DBT, do you actually think I would come on a philosophy forum making this kind of claim without having anything to back it up? It would be suicidal. I will paste the introduction to this chapter but I'm not going to post his observations. Is it that hard to buy the book for $1.95 just for this chapter alone? Then return the book and get your dollar back. Geeze!!That is only because of the speed of light. From there, they assumed light was bringing images through space/time, and there was no way you could convince them otherwise once it was thought to be a basic scientific fact.He is clearly wrong on the matter of instant vision/ light at the eye. In relation to the physics of light and eye and brain function, it doesn't even make sense. So the idea is being asserted without evidence or explanation of how it may work and indisputable evidence against it.
That is why anyone with even a basic understanding of physics rejects the claim.
Who said he didn't have evidence?He is clearly wrong on the matter of instant vision/ light at the eye. In relation to the physics of light and eye and brain function, it doesn't even make sense. So the idea is being asserted without evidence or explanation of how it may work and indisputable evidence against it.
What evidence is there for instant vision?
If what it "goes back to" is part of your argument, then you need to include it. You need to present an explicit and precise argument in full; Or at least link to such an argument.This goes right back to the original disputation which argues that
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. We only ever see light that is here in the present, and nobody has suggested otherwise. Certainly nothing in my experiment requires us to see light that is elsewhere, or to see at any time other than the present.we are not seeing light that was 8.5 minutes ago, but light that is here in the present.
I am not assuming anything. We agree that we see the light that left the Sun 8.5 minutes ago illuminating the ground now, except for the area where the post blocks that light and casts a shadow (at least, I think we agree. If we don't agree on this, please let me know).You’re assuming that we would see the Sun in the past if the Sun hadn’t changed position.
There’s a big disconnect here.
Yes. We agree on that.It is obviously true that the light is from 8.5 minutes ago and it also is true that the shadow is seen only when the light gets here
The shadow is just the bit of ground that the light can't get to because the post is in the way. Do you not agree with that? If not, what do you think the shadow is, and why do you think that?but it is not true that we would see the Sun’s shadow in the present.
That's what we are trying to find out. We agree that the Sun has moved (please correct me if you don't agree); The question that we are now trying to answer is "Do we see the Sun where it is, or where it was?"How could we when the Sun has moved within that time frame (8.5 minutes) in real time as the Earth is spinning?
It's not a conclusion; It's an observation. The Sun was in line with the post 8.5 minutes ago; We can see that, from the position of the shadow.The conclusion drawn that we are seeing the past from this respectable and time-honored instrument doesn’t pan out.
I am glad it's okay with you for people to accept what they can clearly see for themselves; And I invite you to do the same.I know you won’t accept my interpretation and that’s okay.
Thanks.I’m just glad you’re being civil.