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

[peacegirl]

This man would NEVER have made a claim he wasn't sure of. NEVER!!!!

Spoken like a true scientist.

Yes, he was sure of himself. That didn't make him wrong. I know what you're thinking. If he didn't have doubt, he was a fundie, not a scientist. But that is wrong because he did have doubt. He questioned everything, which is the only reason he could make a claim this significant.

 

[peacegirl]

Here is what we have learned so far in this thread (as if these things were things that most of us had to learn):

It is physically and logically impossible for light to be at the eye instantly even though it takes light time to travel to the eye. This is self evident, except to peacegirl.

The eye is a sense organ, the most important one that humans have.

Dogs and many other animals can recognize humans by sight alone, even in photos and videos. No other sense cues are required.

Peacegirl does not understand science or how it works.

Peacegirl dismisses out of hand any scientific study, no matter how rigorously set up and tested, if it contradicts her writer’s claims. She will not even read them, much less entertain them.

She will accept any crackpot claim if she thinks it supporters her writer’s claims or her own weird views (see: vaccines).

Peacegirl is unable to learn anything.

Peacegirl does not even understand basic logic, such as ad hom, labeling it “double talk,” or the Law of Noncontradiction.

Speaking of talk, peacegirl has no idea what she is talking about.

Are we done here?

As an aside, speaking of sight, it is fascinating how some animals, like crows and I think many (all?) other birds have much better vision than humans and can see in the ultraviolet and some even in the infrared. Where we see a black crow, other crows see a vivid tapestry of colors that we can’t even imagine. Crows talk to each other and even have “councils” in which they plan hunting strategies. There is scientific dispute over whether their conversation constitutes a “true” language, whatever that is exactly supposed to mean. And, yes, crows, like many other animals, including dogs, recognize individual humans by sight alone. My pigeon pals here in NYC certainly recognize me by sight alone.

Pigeons may have better color recognition, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with true facial recognition. You are calling in things that have no connection to the issue being investigated.

rods​

Pigeons possess a fourth type of cone cell that is sensitive to ultraviolet (UV) light, which is not detectable by humans. This additional cone type contributes to the pigeon's tetrachromatic vision, allowing them to see a broader range of colors than humans. The presence of this fourth cone cell, along with the specialized oil droplets in their cone cells, enhances the pigeon's ability to distinguish between subtle shades and variations of color, providing them with a high level of chromatic detail. This superior color vision is advantageous for various aspects of their life, including foraging, navigation, and social signaling.

scienceinsights.org+5

 

[pood]

Here is what we have learned so far in this thread (as if these things were things that most of us had to learn):

It is physically and logically impossible for light to be at the eye instantly even though it takes light time to travel to the eye. This is self evident, except to peacegirl.

The eye is a sense organ, the most important one that humans have.

Dogs and many other animals can recognize humans by sight alone, even in photos and videos. No other sense cues are required.

Peacegirl does not understand science or how it works.

Peacegirl dismisses out of hand any scientific study, no matter how rigorously set up and tested, if it contradicts her writer’s claims. She will not even read them, much less entertain them.

She will accept any crackpot claim if she thinks it supporters her writer’s claims or her own weird views (see: vaccines).

Peacegirl is unable to learn anything.

Peacegirl does not even understand basic logic, such as ad hom, labeling it “double talk,” or the Law of Noncontradiction.

Speaking of talk, peacegirl has no idea what she is talking about.

Are we done here?

As an aside, speaking of sight, it is fascinating how some animals, like crows and I think many (all?) other birds have much better vision than humans and can see in the ultraviolet and some even in the infrared. Where we see a black crow, other crows see a vivid tapestry of colors that we can’t even imagine. Crows talk to each other and even have “councils” in which they plan hunting strategies. There is scientific dispute over whether their conversation constitutes a “true” language, whatever that is exactly supposed to mean. And, yes, crows, like many other animals, including dogs, recognize individual humans by sight alone. My pigeon pals here in NYC certainly recognize me by sight alone.

Pigeons may have better color recognition, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with true facial recognition. You are calling in things that have no connection to the issue being investigated.

rods​

Pigeons possess a fourth type of cone cell that is sensitive to ultraviolet (UV) light, which is not detectable by humans. This additional cone type contributes to the pigeon's tetrachromatic vision, allowing them to see a broader range of colors than humans. The presence of this fourth cone cell, along with the specialized oil droplets in their cone cells, enhances the pigeon's ability to distinguish between subtle shades and variations of color, providing them with a high level of chromatic detail. This superior color vision is advantageous for various aspects of their life, including foraging, navigation, and social signaling.
scienceinsights.org+5

Oh, thank you so much for linking to something we already know. And yes, scientific studies have found that pigeons and other birds recognize individual humans by sight alone. So do bees, dogs, and many other animals.

The rest of your stuff is zeppelin tethers.

 

[pood]

Studies show that non-human great apes (humans are great apes), bees, wasps, dogs, cats, horses, sheep, dolphins, polar bears, pigs, pigeons, crows and others recognize individual humans by sight alone. That is because the eye is a sense organ and non-human animals are far smarter than we have given them credit for. It was thought that birds were dumb (“bird brains”) until it was discovered how tightly their neurons were packed together.

 

[steve_bank]

Started a thread Non Human Sensory Perceptions in Ntu8ral Science.

Started it with birds that sense magnetic fields. Some birds may see a visual image of geomagnetic fields .

Science discussion minus philosophy if anyone is ineredt6ed.

Some birds have nerves hat run from magnetic sensors from beak and eye to the brain.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl wants to talk about something else besides her writer’s claims about light and sight, which she knows she cannot defend and which moreover have been demonstrated to be both physically and logically impossible.

There's no point. In no way does this mean he was wrong in his observations.

If they are demonstrated to be both physically and logically impossible, then yes, it pretty much means exactly that.

But they aren't.

But they absolutely are. His "reasoning" contradicts itself, and his claims are demonstrably wrong in several ways.

I even gave you some simple experiments that you could perform for yourself, that proves that we don't see the Sun until the same time that the light from the Sun arrives here - some eight minutes after that light left the Sun.

No special equipment is required, just dawn on a clear morning. No special training is needed. Have you performed these experiments?

When we see the sunset, the light from the Sun is also illuminating the objects nearby. But if we were seeing those objects only after the eight and a half minutes needed for that light to arrive, but seeing the Sun in real time, then the light would still be illuminating our surroundings eight minutes after the last of the Sun's disk had fallen below the horizon.

Similarly, at sunrise, we would see the Sun well above the horizon*, before the first of the direct sunlight arrived to illuminate our surroundings. This is a prediction that is made by your model, and it is easy to test. Anyone can observe it to be false. No special equipment, and no qualifications, accreditations, or memberships are needed; Anyone can test it for themselves.

And anyone who does, will see that the direct light from the sun illuminates our surroundings at the same time that we first see its disk rise above the horizon. We see the Sun after the exact same delay required to see its light illuminate our surroundings. Therefore your model cannot be right.

Your claims:

1) That we see the Sun instantly, but
2) That our surroundings are not visible until the photons complete their eight and a half minute journey,

...cannot both be true. If they were, we would not see direct sunlight illuminate our surroundings until the Sun was some two degrees (four times it's own diameter) above the horizon.




* The Sun appears to travel it's own apparent diameter in about two minutes, so it would be seen to be four times it's own diameter above the horizon before the light illuminated our surroundings.

Well, we can do another simple experiment to test the same hypothesis. I call it "The Human Sundial Experiment".

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.

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.

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 would not see the Sun peeping out from behind the pole because it would not be there. The Earth would have moved 18.5 miles a second in its orbit, allowing us to see the Sun at a different location as the Earth rotates 18,5 miles a second. It would be long gone at 8.5 minutes.

The Earth moves approximately 150 million kilometers around the Sun. Therefore, in 8.5 minutes, the Earth would travel a distance of about 12,700 kilometers around the Sun. This distance is based on the average distance of about 150 million kilometers from the Sun to the Earth.

Phys.org

A sundial can indicate the time of day even after the Earth has rotated and the sun is not in that position anymore. This is because the sundial relies on the position of the Sun's shadow, which aligns with different hour-lines on the dial as the Sun moves across the sky. The gnomon, which casts the shadow, must be oriented with respect to the Earth's rotation for the sundial to be accurate throughout the year. If the sundial is correctly aligned with the Earth's axis, it will still provide the correct time even if the Sun is not in the position indicated by the shadow.

Wikipedia+2

18.5 miles/second
To calculate the speed of an object moving at 67,000 miles per hour, you can use the formula:
Speed = Distance / Time.
Assuming the object travels for 1 hour, the speed would be:
Speed = 67,000 miles / 1 hour = 67,000 miles/hour.
If you want to convert this to miles per second, it would be 67,000 miles/hour / 3600 seconds/hour = 18.5 miles/second.

GIGACalculator.com+1

*The Human Sundial Experiment is functionally much the same as the Sunrise Experiment; In the latter, we used the Earth itself to cast the shadow, but in this new experiment, we use something that's small enough so that the Sun is only just obscured from our vantage point. The benefit of this is that a telegraph pole doesn't have an atmosphere to scatter light, so we aren't at risk of being confused by the pre-dawn brightness of the sky.

These experiments demonstrate that instant vision is nonsense.

And his "reasoning" is contradictory, so it is logically impossible that he is right - we know he is wrong without needing to do the above experiments, and are doing them only to show that we are openminded.

But it doesn't prove what you think it does. And it certainly doesn't prove his claim logically impossible.

light is constantly traveli

Photons that the object reflects do not arrive because they do not travel

... and there's your contradiction.

Game, Set, Match.

Nooo, it is not a contradiction.

You say that light is constantly travelling, but does not arrive because it does not travel.

That's a contradiction, and remains one no matter how much you deny it.

So in summary, his reasoning can't be correct, but we are courteous enough to test his conclusion anyway, and when we do, we find that it is also incorrect. And I have even given you a detailed set of instructions so that you can repeat my tests for yourself.

Have you done so? What did you see?

This doesn't prove anything because of the Earth's rotation in relation to the Sun, which would put the Sun in a different location than the shadow. It has nothing to do with 8.5 minutes later.

The reason we see the sun's shadow in a sundial after the sun has moved in its orbit is due to the principle of the sundial's design. The sundial consists of a flat plate (the dial) and a gnomon, which casts a shadow onto the dial. As the sun appears to move through the sky, the shadow aligns with different hour-lines, which are marked on the dial to indicate the time of day. The style is the time-telling edge of the gnomon, though a single point or nodus may be used. The gnomon casts a broad shadow; the shadow of the style shows the time. The gnomon may be a rod, wire, or elaborately decorated metal casting. The style must be parallel to the axis of the Earth's rotation for the sundial to be accurate throughout the year. The style's angle from horizontal is equal to the sundial's geographical latitude.

Wikipedia

 

[peacegirl]

To reiterate: we can rule out peacegirl’s claims about real-time seeing on logic alone, without any need for experiment.

She claims that light takes time to get to the eyes.

She also claims that light is at the eyes instantly.

This is obviously self-contradictory logical claptrap.

No experiments or investigations are needed to rule it out a priori

I want to say again that you’re wrong. Light from the Sun takes 8.5 minutes to get to Earth. He never said

Pg

People here are generally open minded and curious, but also critical. You can't just trow anything out and not expect criticism.

The book and your clans were not prejudged. You were listened to, debated and your claims rejected as debate evolved.

No, the book has not been read. I bet no one read anything I painstakingly posted. The only thing people seem interested in is his claim regarding the eyes, when this was important but not as important as his first discovery.

As to being on a par with ancient philosophers, they had many ideas on reality without the benefit of our modern science and all of it fell by the wayside. Ancient philosophy is more of an historical footnote.

Modern empirical science is based in experiment, data driven. Experiment always trumps claims.

This was more than a claim.

And the example of the claims of a successful cold fusion. Enormous practical and economic implcations. It was quickly rejected globally, nobody could repeat the ex[prment.

So saying the object lightwave travels and the image is already at the eye gets nowhere without an experiment. Sayig dogs can not recognize a picture of an object because it 'does not have essence of the object' requires clear definitions and a controlled experiment.

A step by step procedure that anyone can run which will result inn the same concision without question.

I asked people to do an experiment to see if their dog can recognize them on a computer screen without any movement or other cues. That's easy enough to do.

How do you select the dogs? How do you check visual acuity of the digs you use? Color vison?

An experiment with dogs being trained to push a lever and get a reward does not trump a real life observation.

The video doesn't show that dogs are unable to recognize their owners by sight. That a dog has trouble recognising their owner after a long period away is a memory issue...which does not mean that dogs are unable to recognize faces.

If it was the case that it was a memory issue, why would they remember them when sniffing them but not recognizing them by sight. It doesn’t add up. So if you’re unsure, do your own experiment to prove that it’s just a memory issue. My dog always approached me with caution when coming home, even after an hour, until he smelled me. And if it’s the case that dogs can recognize faces, why can’t they recognize faces on a computer screen? The light is still traveling right toward them at less than 20 feet away.

Maybe because dogs are better with smell than sight.

They are better with smell, and need it to recognize.

Which does not mean that dogs cannot recognize people by sight. They can. It has been shown that they can.

So far, this has not been proven to be true when there are no other cues helping them.

Not only dogs, but other animals.

Birds, crows, magpies, etc, are able to recognize individuals.....and may hold grudges if a person offends them in some way.

''....scientists are increasingly recognizing their remarkable intelligence. The question “Can magpies hold grudges?” isn’t just a whimsical inquiry; it probes the depths of avian cognition and forces us to reconsider our understanding of animal behavior. This article delves into the scientific evidence, exploring how magpies’ impressive memories and social complexities allow them to form and retain negative associations with specific individuals.''

Can magpies hold grudges? - The Institute for Environmental Research and Education

Can Magpies Hold Grudges? A Deep Dive into Avian Memory and Behavior Yes, magpies can hold grudges, demonstrating a remarkable […]

iere.org

Animals have amazing abilities. Lots of animals have good memories and can make accurate associations whether negative or positive. Elephants are known to have amazing long-term memories, but none of this proves that dogs can recognize from sight alone or other animals for that matter. You're grasping at straws.

I bet that you haven't read the articles or opened any of the links to the research. Dismissing anything that contradicts the authors claims, you fail to account for the evidence.

What evidence? Articles are not proof. If it is true, wouldn't there be tons of visuals to confirm this theory? Even bilby says that you need to see for yourself, and I have never seen dogs recognizing their loved companions who are standing far enough, but not so far where a dog's vision would be compromised, from sight alone by a show of excitement, wagging of a tail, jumping up and down, whining, circling, or what have you, without other cues. With all the info on the internet, where is the actual proof?

 

[peacegirl]

Here is what we have learned so far in this thread (as if these things were things that most of us had to learn):

It is physically and logically impossible for light to be at the eye instantly even though it takes light time to travel to the eye. This is self evident, except to peacegirl.

The eye is a sense organ, the most important one that humans have.

Dogs and many other animals can recognize humans by sight alone, even in photos and videos. No other sense cues are required.

Peacegirl does not understand science or how it works.

Peacegirl dismisses out of hand any scientific study, no matter how rigorously set up and tested, if it contradicts her writer’s claims. She will not even read them, much less entertain them.

She will accept any crackpot claim if she thinks it supporters her writer’s claims or her own weird views (see: vaccines).

Peacegirl is unable to learn anything.

Peacegirl does not even understand basic logic, such as ad hom, labeling it “double talk,” or the Law of Noncontradiction.

Speaking of talk, peacegirl has no idea what she is talking about.

Are we done here?

As an aside, speaking of sight, it is fascinating how some animals, like crows and I think many (all?) other birds have much better vision than humans and can see in the ultraviolet and some even in the infrared. Where we see a black crow, other crows see a vivid tapestry of colors that we can’t even imagine. Crows talk to each other and even have “councils” in which they plan hunting strategies. There is scientific dispute over whether their conversation constitutes a “true” language, whatever that is exactly supposed to mean. And, yes, crows, like many other animals, including dogs, recognize individual humans by sight alone. My pigeon pals here in NYC certainly recognize me by sight alone.

Pigeons may have better color recognition, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with true facial recognition. You are calling in things that have no connection to the issue being investigated.

rods​

Pigeons possess a fourth type of cone cell that is sensitive to ultraviolet (UV) light, which is not detectable by humans. This additional cone type contributes to the pigeon's tetrachromatic vision, allowing them to see a broader range of colors than humans. The presence of this fourth cone cell, along with the specialized oil droplets in their cone cells, enhances the pigeon's ability to distinguish between subtle shades and variations of color, providing them with a high level of chromatic detail. This superior color vision is advantageous for various aspects of their life, including foraging, navigation, and social signaling.
scienceinsights.org+5

Oh, thank you so much for linking to something we already know. And yes, scientific studies have found that pigeons and other birds recognize individual humans by sight alone. So do bees, dogs, and many other animals.

The rest of your stuff is zeppelin tethers.

Put your money where your mouth is ALREADY. You have never proven any of this.

 

[peacegirl]

Studies show that non-human great apes (humans are great apes), bees, wasps, dogs, cats, horses, sheep, dolphins, polar bears, pigs, pigeons, crows and others recognize individual humans by sight alone. That is because the eye is a sense organ and non-human animals are far smarter than we have given them credit for. It was thought that birds were dumb (“bird brains”) until it was discovered how tightly their neurons were packed together.

This has nothing to do with not giving them credit. I don't like the expression "bird brains" either. I love animals as much as anyone, but what is true is true. They cannot recognize by sight alone. This doesn't make them less than. It just makes them different from humans, who have the capacity for sight recognition.

 

[bilby]

Science will have to take the lead in affirming the accuracy of these principles before they can be applied worldwide.

It has. It confirmed that these principles are nonsense. They will never (indeed, can never) be applied anywhere; Reality does not permit it.

You are so wrong, you have no idea. Thank god you don't.

I note the complete absence of any arguments to refute my position.

All you have is thanks to offer an imaginary entity, for your ongoing ability to ignore the fact that your father's principles are also entirely imaginary.

It's pathetic.

I don't think you have a clue what science is. Are you expecting the king of science to issue a proclaimation? Do you want the pope of science to issue an ex-cathedra decree? Perhaps the board of world scientists needs to vote to accept your father's work?

It doesn't need a vote. It needs a thorough examination,

Which has been done. By the scientists right here in this thread. And has shown you father's claims to be wrong.

We developed a clear and effective test; Applied that test to reality; Reported the results; And invited anyone who disputes or doubts the results to test for themselves, having provided a detailed methodology to do so.

That is science.

And it shows unequivocally that he is wrong.

which they continue to fail to do.

YOU.

Not some nebulous "they"; We, the scientists here present, have done the examination you demand, and have invited, even implored, you to do likewise.

Your continued failure to do even a chrsory examination of your father's crackpot ideas is noted. It shows that you are disinterested in the truth, if there is any risk that it might challenge your beliefs.

Science has taken the lead, right here in this thread;

No it has not.

Yes, it has.

Science is a methodology; The two simple experiments that I asked you to carry out prove that real time vision is nonsense.

Your refusal to do science does not imply that nobody else can do it, and show for themselves just bow wrong you are.

You are not entitled to your own facts; Reality is real, and trumps any belief, no matter how cherished it may be.

It has confirmed that these "principles" are nonsense; And your response has been to ignore or denigrate that science, in favour of your emotions and of appeals to the emotions of others

Stop masquerading as if you know what the principles are. You have given no indication that you do. Try again.

Stop masquerading as if you know what the scientific method is. You have given no indication that you do. Try again.

 

[pood]

What evidence? Articles are not proof. If it is true, wouldn't there be tons of visuals to confirm this theory? Even bilby says that you need to see for yourself, and I have never seen dogs recognizing their loved companions who are standing far enough, but not so far where a dog's vision would be compromised, from sight alone by a show of excitement, wagging of a tail, jumping up and down, whining, circling, or what have you, without other cues. With all the info on the internet, where is the actual proof?

People have posted for you numerous links to scientific studies over the years demonstrating that dogs can recognize their human partners by sight alone, even in photos and videos. You ignore it all because you hate and fear science, because science renders your father’s claims ridiculous.

 

[bilby]

No, this is not about emotions bilby. It has nothing to do with it. You are so wrong, it's upsetting.

Seriously, could you at least try to go three sentences without contradicting yourself?

 

[bilby]

Articles don't prove anything. They can try to make something fit their narrative. The only proof that is worth its salt is to see the actual proof that we can see for ourselves. You have not provided this.

Well, I have.
Here it is again:

But they absolutely are. His "reasoning" contradicts itself, and his claims are demonstrably wrong in several ways.

I even gave you some simple experiments that you could perform for yourself, that proves that we don't see the Sun until the same time that the light from the Sun arrives here - some eight minutes after that light left the Sun.

No special equipment is required, just dawn on a clear morning. No special training is needed. Have you performed these experiments?

When we see the sunset, the light from the Sun is also illuminating the objects nearby. But if we were seeing those objects only after the eight and a half minutes needed for that light to arrive, but seeing the Sun in real time, then the light would still be illuminating our surroundings eight minutes after the last of the Sun's disk had fallen below the horizon.

Similarly, at sunrise, we would see the Sun well above the horizon*, before the first of the direct sunlight arrived to illuminate our surroundings. This is a prediction that is made by your model, and it is easy to test. Anyone can observe it to be false. No special equipment, and no qualifications, accreditations, or memberships are needed; Anyone can test it for themselves.

And anyone who does, will see that the direct light from the sun illuminates our surroundings at the same time that we first see its disk rise above the horizon. We see the Sun after the exact same delay required to see its light illuminate our surroundings. Therefore your model cannot be right.

Your claims:

1) That we see the Sun instantly, but
2) That our surroundings are not visible until the photons complete their eight and a half minute journey,

...cannot both be true. If they were, we would not see direct sunlight illuminate our surroundings until the Sun was some two degrees (four times it's own diameter) above the horizon.




* The Sun appears to travel it's own apparent diameter in about two minutes, so it would be seen to be four times it's own diameter above the horizon before the light illuminated our surroundings.

Well, we can do another simple experiment to test the same hypothesis. I call it "The Human Sundial Experiment".

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.

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.

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.






*The Human Sundial Experiment is functionally much the same as the Sunrise Experiment; In the latter, we used the Earth itself to cast the shadow, but in this new experiment, we use something that's small enough so that the Sun is only just obscured from our vantage point. The benefit of this is that a telegraph pole doesn't have an atmosphere to scatter light, so we aren't at risk of being confused by the pre-dawn brightness of the sky.

These experiments demonstrate that instant vision is nonsense.

And his "reasoning" is contradictory, so it is logically impossible that he is right - we know he is wrong without needing to do the above experiments, and are doing them only to show that we are openminded.

So, having met your demand for "...the actual proof that we can see for ourselves", are you going to change your mind, and admit that you were wrong?

If not, why not?

Where are you planning to move the goalposts to this time?

 

[bilby]

This man would NEVER have made a claim he wasn't sure of. NEVER!!!!

Spoken like a true scientist.

Yes, he was sure of himself. That didn't make him wrong.

Maybe not, but it does require him to be either wrong or perfect; And nobody's perfect, so...

I know what you're thinking. If he didn't have doubt, he was a fundie, not a scientist.

Yup. That's it right there.

But that is wrong because he did have doubt.

How could you (or anyone) know that? Unless he expressed that doubt. Which he couldn't, if (as you claim) "This man would NEVER have made a claim he wasn't sure of. NEVER!!!!".

He questioned everything, which is the only reason he could make a claim this significant.

Well he did a piss-poor job of it, which is the only reason he could be so obviously wrong with such arrogant over-confidence.

 

[pood]

Studies show that non-human great apes (humans are great apes), bees, wasps, dogs, cats, horses, sheep, dolphins, polar bears, pigs, pigeons, crows and others recognize individual humans by sight alone. That is because the eye is a sense organ and non-human animals are far smarter than we have given them credit for. It was thought that birds were dumb (“bird brains”) until it was discovered how tightly their neurons were packed together.

This has nothing to do with not giving them credit. I don't like the expression "bird brains" either. I love animals as much as anyone, but what is true is true.

Exactly. What is true is true. And your claims are false.

They cannot recognize by sight alone.

Of course they can. Bees do it, birds do it, dogs do it, many others do it. You just reject these scientific findings because you hate and fear science, since science renders your father’s claims ridiculous. Science challenges your precious world view, and makes you angry and resentful.

This doesn't make them less than. It just makes them different from humans, who have the capacity for sight recognition.

Tons of animals have the capacity for sight recognition, many of them much better than our own.

 

[pood]

I would also add that you, peacegirl, do not love animals. It is obvious to me that you hold them in contempt.

 

[DBT]

To reiterate: we can rule out peacegirl’s claims about real-time seeing on logic alone, without any need for experiment.

She claims that light takes time to get to the eyes.

She also claims that light is at the eyes instantly.

This is obviously self-contradictory logical claptrap.

No experiments or investigations are needed to rule it out a priori

I want to say again that you’re wrong. Light from the Sun takes 8.5 minutes to get to Earth. He never said

Pg

People here are generally open minded and curious, but also critical. You can't just trow anything out and not expect criticism.

The book and your clans were not prejudged. You were listened to, debated and your claims rejected as debate evolved.

No, the book has not been read. I bet no one read anything I painstakingly posted. The only thing people seem interested in is his claim regarding the eyes, when this was important but not as important as his first discovery.

As to being on a par with ancient philosophers, they had many ideas on reality without the benefit of our modern science and all of it fell by the wayside. Ancient philosophy is more of an historical footnote.

Modern empirical science is based in experiment, data driven. Experiment always trumps claims.

This was more than a claim.

And the example of the claims of a successful cold fusion. Enormous practical and economic implcations. It was quickly rejected globally, nobody could repeat the ex[prment.

So saying the object lightwave travels and the image is already at the eye gets nowhere without an experiment. Sayig dogs can not recognize a picture of an object because it 'does not have essence of the object' requires clear definitions and a controlled experiment.

A step by step procedure that anyone can run which will result inn the same concision without question.

I asked people to do an experiment to see if their dog can recognize them on a computer screen without any movement or other cues. That's easy enough to do.

How do you select the dogs? How do you check visual acuity of the digs you use? Color vison?

An experiment with dogs being trained to push a lever and get a reward does not trump a real life observation.

The video doesn't show that dogs are unable to recognize their owners by sight. That a dog has trouble recognising their owner after a long period away is a memory issue...which does not mean that dogs are unable to recognize faces.

If it was the case that it was a memory issue, why would they remember them when sniffing them but not recognizing them by sight. It doesn’t add up. So if you’re unsure, do your own experiment to prove that it’s just a memory issue. My dog always approached me with caution when coming home, even after an hour, until he smelled me. And if it’s the case that dogs can recognize faces, why can’t they recognize faces on a computer screen? The light is still traveling right toward them at less than 20 feet away.

Maybe because dogs are better with smell than sight.

They are better with smell, and need it to recognize.

Which does not mean that dogs cannot recognize people by sight. They can. It has been shown that they can.

So far, this has not been proven to be true when there are no other cues helping them.Ar

Not only dogs, but other animals.

Birds, crows, magpies, etc, are able to recognize individuals.....and may hold grudges if a person offends them in some way.

''....scientists are increasingly recognizing their remarkable intelligence. The question “Can magpies hold grudges?” isn’t just a whimsical inquiry; it probes the depths of avian cognition and forces us to reconsider our understanding of animal behavior. This article delves into the scientific evidence, exploring how magpies’ impressive memories and social complexities allow them to form and retain negative associations with specific individuals.''

Can magpies hold grudges? - The Institute for Environmental Research and Education

Can Magpies Hold Grudges? A Deep Dive into Avian Memory and Behavior Yes, magpies can hold grudges, demonstrating a remarkable […]

iere.org

Animals have amazing abilities. Lots of animals have good memories and can make accurate associations whether negative or positive. Elephants are known to have amazing long-term memories, but none of this proves that dogs can recognize from sight alone or other animals for that matter. You're grasping at straws.

I bet that you haven't read the articles or opened any of the links to the research. Dismissing anything that contradicts the authors claims, you fail to account for the evidence.

Articles don't prove anything. They can try to make something fit their narrative. The only proof that is worth its salt is to see the actual proof that we can see for ourselves. You have not provided this.

You say that even though you have not opened any of the links to the relevant studies or considered the abundant evidence showing that many animals do indeed recognize individuals by sight alone.

Why is that?

 

[pood]

You say that even though you have not opened any of the links to the relevant studies or considered the abundant evidence showing that many animals do indeed recognize individuals by sight alone.

Why is that?

This is her long-standing pattern. She refuses to read anything that contradicts her indoctrination. As mentioned several times, a biologist at FF wrote, just for her, a paper, with illustrations, documenting how the eye works down to the atomic level. It’s an impressive piece of work which I have linked here, and can link again to anyone interested.

She eventually admitted that she refused to read it.

Trying to teach peacegirl anything is like trying to put lipstick on a pig. It annoys the pig and leaves you frustrated. So you’d better ask why you are trying to put lipstick on a pig in the first place.

 

[bilby]

Peacegirl wants to talk about something else besides her writer’s claims about light and sight, which she knows she cannot defend and which moreover have been demonstrated to be both physically and logically impossible.

There's no point. In no way does this mean he was wrong in his observations.

If they are demonstrated to be both physically and logically impossible, then yes, it pretty much means exactly that.

But they aren't.

But they absolutely are. His "reasoning" contradicts itself, and his claims are demonstrably wrong in several ways.

I even gave you some simple experiments that you could perform for yourself, that proves that we don't see the Sun until the same time that the light from the Sun arrives here - some eight minutes after that light left the Sun.

No special equipment is required, just dawn on a clear morning. No special training is needed. Have you performed these experiments?

When we see the sunset, the light from the Sun is also illuminating the objects nearby. But if we were seeing those objects only after the eight and a half minutes needed for that light to arrive, but seeing the Sun in real time, then the light would still be illuminating our surroundings eight minutes after the last of the Sun's disk had fallen below the horizon.

Similarly, at sunrise, we would see the Sun well above the horizon*, before the first of the direct sunlight arrived to illuminate our surroundings. This is a prediction that is made by your model, and it is easy to test. Anyone can observe it to be false. No special equipment, and no qualifications, accreditations, or memberships are needed; Anyone can test it for themselves.

And anyone who does, will see that the direct light from the sun illuminates our surroundings at the same time that we first see its disk rise above the horizon. We see the Sun after the exact same delay required to see its light illuminate our surroundings. Therefore your model cannot be right.

Your claims:

1) That we see the Sun instantly, but
2) That our surroundings are not visible until the photons complete their eight and a half minute journey,

...cannot both be true. If they were, we would not see direct sunlight illuminate our surroundings until the Sun was some two degrees (four times it's own diameter) above the horizon.




* The Sun appears to travel it's own apparent diameter in about two minutes, so it would be seen to be four times it's own diameter above the horizon before the light illuminated our surroundings.

Well, we can do another simple experiment to test the same hypothesis. I call it "The Human Sundial Experiment".

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.

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.

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 would not see the Sun peeping out from behind the pole because it would not be there.

We do though. Despite your prediction that we wouldn't. Thereby proving your prediction wrong. The Sun has moved, but we don't see it where it now is, because we don't see in real time.

The Earth would have moved 18.5 miles a second in its orbit, allowing us to see the Sun at a different location as the Earth rotates 18,5 miles a second. It would be long gone at 8.5 minutes.

Exactly. But what we actually see is where it was 8.5 minutes ago, because we don't see in real time.

<snipped irrelevant AI slop>

*The Human Sundial Experiment is functionally much the same as the Sunrise Experiment; In the latter, we used the Earth itself to cast the shadow, but in this new experiment, we use something that's small enough so that the Sun is only just obscured from our vantage point. The benefit of this is that a telegraph pole doesn't have an atmosphere to scatter light, so we aren't at risk of being confused by the pre-dawn brightness of the sky.

These experiments demonstrate that instant vision is nonsense.

And his "reasoning" is contradictory, so it is logically impossible that he is right - we know he is wrong without needing to do the above experiments, and are doing them only to show that we are openminded.

But it doesn't prove what you think it does.

You just literally admitted that it does exactly that.

And it certainly doesn't prove his claim logically impossible.

No, that's an exercise in logic, and requires on experiment, just the demonstration of a contradiction. Which was provided earlier.

light is constantly traveli

Photons that the object reflects do not arrive because they do not travel

... and there's your contradiction.

Game, Set, Match.

Nooo, it is not a contradiction.

You say that light is constantly travelling, but does not arrive because it does not travel.

That's a contradiction, and remains one no matter how much you deny it.

So in summary, his reasoning can't be correct, but we are courteous enough to test his conclusion anyway, and when we do, we find that it is also incorrect. And I have even given you a detailed set of instructions so that you can repeat my tests for yourself.

Have you done so? What did you see?

This doesn't prove anything

Yes, it does. It proves that we don't see in real time.

because of the Earth's rotation in relation to the Sun, which would put the Sun in a different location than the shadow.

Exactly. And yet, we see the Sun and the shadow line up perfectly, which we could not do if you were right about real time vision.

It has nothing to do with 8.5 minutes later.

It has everything to do with demonstrating as a fact that we do not see the Sun in real time, and the shadow on an 8.5 minute delay, both of which your claims directly imply we should.

<snipped irrelevant (and misattributed) AI slop>

 

[bilby]

Of course they can. Bees do it, birds do it, dogs do it, many others do it.

Even educated fleas?