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

[peacegirl]

Pg can show no explicit observations, demonstrations, or experiments that show Lessans is right, but says that science of optics, eyes, and brain which do is wrong.

Very strange reasoning and logic.

'One experiment is worth a thousands words'

That is true, but the claim that we see in delayed time hasn't been proven through experiment.

Yes it has. You may not have done so, but that's because you refuse to, not because you can't.

Scientists have explained a mechanism that they believe to be correct because it all seems to fit, but it hasn't been proven 100%. Where have they shown what the brain is doing in this version?

Several simple experiments to prove that we see in delayed time have been presented to you in this thread; But you have either not done them, or not shared your results.

He gave his observations and his reasoning therefrom. You sidestepped them when I asked you to see if your dog can recognize you without other cues, and you never answered. What experiments (that I missed) prove we see in delayed time? Light travels, and that is a fact, but that alone doesn't tell us how the brain works.

So why would you single Lessans out?

Nobody is singling Lessans out except you. You came here holding his ideas up for scrutiny; That doing so resulted in everyone laughing at his absurd, impossible, self-defeating nonsense should not have surprised you, but apparently it did - which suggests that 'thinking things through' is not a skill you have bothered to acquire.

Well guess what? It will be you who will be running with your tail between your legs (if we're still living) when Lessans is proven to be right after all. What will you say then, Big Shot?

His claim is not aimed at disproving optical theory. They can exist together.

No, they can't. They are contradictory. If one is true, the other logically must be false.

That is not true. Optical theory works in its application. It has nothing to do with the direction the brain sees.

You don't care what is true; You just want to believe in your father's daft ideas, and to have others believe too.

It's not about getting others to believe it. It's about understanding the truth, which will have a major impact on the way we see ourselves and those around us.

Sadly, nobody can stop you from believing nonsense. Fortunately, you seem sufficiently incompetent at persuasion that your idiocy is largely contained, and doesn't spread to others.

This is not about persuasion. It's about understanding where his observations came from (which he discovered working backwards) to see why the mind is not creating the image.

 

[bilby]

Well guess what? It will be you who will be running with your tail between your legs (if we're still living) when Lessans is proven to be right after all. What will you say then, Big Shot?

Are you eight years old?

 

[bilby]

What experiments (that I missed) prove we see in delayed time?

Have you suffered a recent blow to the head? Or have you been drinking to excess?

You should definitely seek medical help with your amnesia issues.

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?

 

[pood]

Well guess what? It will be you who will be running with your tail between your legs (if we're still living) when Lessans is proven to be right after all. What will you say then, Big Shot?

Are you eight years old?

Don’t insult eight-year olds. Even an eight-year old could understand that it’s not logically possible for light to be at the eye instantly even while it takes time for light to travel to the eye.

 

[DBT]

Scientists have explained a mechanism that they believe to be correct because it all seems to fit, but it hasn't been proven 100%. Where have they shown what the brain is doing in this version?

What happens when someone is put under aesthetic? What happens to their conscious experience, including sight? Where does conscious mind come from? Where does it go when a person is unconscious? What does your book say?

 

[steve_bank]

Pg can show no explicit observations, demonstrations, or experiments that show Lessans is right, but says that science of optics, eyes, and brain which do is wrong.

Very strange reasoning and logic.

'One experiment is worth a thousands words'

That is true, but the claim that we see in delayed time hasn't been proven through experiment. It is a narrative that seems logical, but many theories can appear logical but still be wrong. So why would you single Lessans out?

Actually it has, it has been explained ad nauseam.

If nothing else the C speed limit precludes anything happening in zero time or without delay.


As I said, you can't just look at vision when you say without delay. It ripples through a great deal of issues lie electronic.


I takes time for light to pass trough the eye lens. Rods and cones take time to respond. It takes time for signals to travel through optic nerves to brain. And so on.

 

[bilby]

Well guess what? It will be you who will be running with your tail between your legs (if we're still living) when Lessans is proven to be right after all. What will you say then, Big Shot?

Are you eight years old?

Don’t insult eight-year olds. Even an eight-year old could understand that it’s not logically possible for light to be at the eye instantly even while it takes time for light to travel to the eye.

It's amusing that in the postulated future world in which Lessans work is proven right, we are told that everyone will be happy, will be able to do whatever they please, and nobody will ever harm anyone else, nor desire to do so. And simultaneously, that those who refused to believe his work to be true and perfect before the proof was available will be "running with your tail between your legs".

These two future states seem to be logically incompatible. And surely @peacegirl wouldn't want to contradict herself.

It's the Problem of Evil all over again; It seems that the faithful always claim to believe in universal happiness, but can't bring themselves to let go of the certainty that the infidels will suffer for their lack of faith.

Of course, were I to be proven wrong I should be very happy to have learned something new. But, lacking as she does any experience of 'learning something new', it seems that this is an alien concept to @peacegirl.

Indeed, she seems to view the prospect of learning anything new, with its consequent changing of the mind and embracing of new ways of doing things, with abject terror, bordering on paranoia.

Those evil scientists are trying to undermine her faith, and must be stopped!

 

[peacegirl]

Pg can show no explicit observations, demonstrations, or experiments that show Lessans is right, but says that science of optics, eyes, and brain which do is wrong.

Very strange reasoning and logic.

'One experiment is worth a thousands words'

That is true, but the claim that we see in delayed time hasn't been proven through experiment. It is a narrative that seems logical, but many theories can appear logical but still be wrong. So why would you single Lessans out?

Actually it has, it has been explained ad nauseam.

If nothing else the C speed limit precludes anything happening in zero time or without delay.

No it does not. Not if this is about the brain, not light. You’re making a category error.

As I said, you can't just look at vision when you say without delay. It ripples through a great deal of issues lie electronic.

None of these applications have anything to do with seeing in real time.

I takes time for light to pass trough the eye lens. Rods and cones take time to respond. It takes time for signals to travel through optic nerves to brain. And so on.

That’s not what real-time vision is referring to.

 

[peacegirl]

Well guess what? It will be you who will be running with your tail between your legs (if we're still living) when Lessans is proven to be right after all. What will you say then, Big Shot?

Are you eight years old?

Yes, I am 8 living in the past in a closed loop, which is my now. Didn’t you know there is no one now?

 

[peacegirl]

Scientists have explained a mechanism that they believe to be correct because it all seems to fit, but it hasn't been proven 100%. Where have they shown what the brain is doing in this version?

What happens when someone is put under aesthetic? What happens to their conscious experience, including sight? Where does conscious mind come from? Where does it go when a person is unconscious? What does your book say?

He doesn’t talk about consciousness except as it relates to birth and death. Also, he discussed how a doctor used too much anesthetic during a wisdom tooth removal and killed his patient in the chapter: The Wisdom of Socrates.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
Didn’t you know there is no one now?

'Now hear this!!' Errr .. okay it is not 'right now; .. err I mean it was right now but now its not right now.

Let m,e try again.

Now Hear this!! When you hear this it was now a few seconds ago when it was now. There is a fire in the building everybody evacuate now, er I mean as an ongoing process across a span of time leave the building in an orderly fashion.

President of the company says 'I will never hire a philosopher again'.

 

[steve_bank]

Now Pg is down to 'if Lessans is true'.

If what I say true the Sun goes around the Earth you will all have your tails between you legs.

 

[DBT]

Scientists have explained a mechanism that they believe to be correct because it all seems to fit, but it hasn't been proven 100%. Where have they shown what the brain is doing in this version?

What happens when someone is put under aesthetic? What happens to their conscious experience, including sight? Where does conscious mind come from? Where does it go when a person is unconscious? What does your book say?

He doesn’t talk about consciousness except as it relates to birth and death. Also, he discussed how a doctor used too much anesthetic during a wisdom tooth removal and killed his patient in the chapter: The Wisdom of Socrates.

Sight is an attribute of consciousness. As with all the attributes of conscious mind, sight takes time to generate....the information must be acquired, processed, etc.

Something the author, based on the claims he made, did not appear to understand.

 

[bilby]

Now Pg is down to 'if Lessans is true'.

If what I say true the Sun goes around the Earth you will all have your tails between you legs.

"when Lessans is proven to be right after all" I will be far too busy watching the demons figure skating, to worry about where my tail is.

 

[peacegirl]

the requirements for sight, which are luminosity (there has to be light at the eye), and the object's size (too small or too distant, there will be no light in which to see said object.)

The term luminosity in conventional usage regards radiated or emitted electromagnetic waves. In the context of this discussion about light, it is NOT luminosity that determines whether light is visible by humans; rather, it is the apparent brightness upon which visibility depends, and that brightness derives at least from luminosity and distance. This means necessarily that light travels, and you agree that light travels.

With regards to luminosity, the sun emits light. Does the moon emit light? If it is said that the moon emits light, then there is a distinction between sunlight and moonlight in that the light emitted by the moon is not light for which the moon is the source whereas the sun is the source of sunlight. Another way of depicting this difference is to say that the moon reflects light; moonlight is a reflection; moonlight is reflected light.

However, you apparently deny that the moon reflects light. You say:

light travels, but it doesn't bounce off an object, traveling with that information to the eye through space/time and allowing the mind to generate an image.

Light that is reflected is light that "bounces off". If you deny that the moon reflects light, do you regard the moon as the very source of its own light?

No

Do you think that the sun generates its own light?

Yes

I will presume that you think that the sun is the source of its own light, and I will presume that you do not think of the moon as generating its own light.

If the moon is not the source of its own light and if the moon does not reflect light, then the moon always and utterly lacks luminosity and, therefore, brightness; hence, the moon can never be seen.

The word "reflect" is getting us in trouble.

But the moon can be seen.

Yes, it can be seen because parts of the moon are illuminated as it orbits the Earth.

In the alternative, you might mean to say that the moon reflects light, and that light travels, but that light is devoid of anything that can serve as information regarding that from which the light travels. So, how is the moon seen, especially given the claim that the eyes are not (and are no part of) a sense organ - there being only the four other senses by which humans gather information about the world around them?

The moon can be seen because of what Lessans said all along. If it is bright enough and large enough to be within someone's field of view, he will see the moon instantly because the light will be at the eye without any travel time necessary. I didn't say there are only four other senses by which humans gather information about the world around them. I said that infants begin to focus due to the stimulation of the other senses that give them the desire to see the world around them. Although the eyes are not a sense organ, this does not mean we don't utilize and integrate information that we see in real time.

You claim that traveling light in no way contributes to images generated by the mind. Because vision is not one of the senses? So, does the mind use the other senses to generate an image of the mind?

Are you being silly? The mind is involved in what it feels, tastes, touches, and smells, but none of these senses generate vision, although I have heard of the senses crisscrossing and confusing the mind, if that's what you mean.

Synesthesia is a neurological condition where the stimulation of one sense triggers another, such as hearing colors or tasting sounds. It is not a medical condition but rather a natural variation in the brain's wiring, affecting about 1% to 5% of the population. Synesthesia can manifest in various forms, including chromesthesia (hearing colors) and grapheme-color synesthesia (associating letters with colors).
BetterHelp+3

Does the mind use touch to see the moon? Does it use hearing to see the moon? How about taste? Does it smell the moon?

The reason that traveling light in no way contributes to images generated by the mind is that vision is not a sense organ. The optic nerve is not like the other sense organs, which receive and transmit external stimuli.

Myelinated tract of the central nervous system
The optic nerve does not act like other sense organs because it is a myelinated tract of the central nervous system, which means it is covered with myelin produced by oligodendrocytes and encased within the meninges. This myelination is not found in peripheral nerves, which are covered by Schwann cells and lack myelin. The optic nerve's myelination is part of its unique classification as a myelinated tract of the central nervous system, distinguishing it from the peripheral nervous system. This myelination is crucial for the optic nerve's ability to transmit visual information rapidly and efficiently to the brain, allowing for the formation of images and the perception of the visual world.
clevelandclinic.org

Because by your reckoning, nothing comes to the mind from the eyes to serve as information to be used in generating the image. And it does no good to say that there has to be "light at the eye", because, again by your reckoning, the light at the eye contains no information to be used in generating an image. Yet, the mind does generate an image, and it clearly is not generated on the basis of touch, hearing, taste, or smell, and it is supposedly not generated on the basis of input from vision.

At this point you might claim that "light at the eye" contains information that can be used for generating an image of that which is seen, but then you have the problem of how that light has such information if light traveling from the seen thing does not have that information.

Because light traveling, according to Lessans, doesn't carry information, since the object is not reflecting an image (so to speak) that travels beyond the distance and brightness that allow said object to be seen.

The mind includes an ability to imagine. Does the mind simply imagine the moon? A baby duck peeping is real - not because it is imagined as seen - but, instead, since it can be heard? How does the mind distinguish between something imagined from something real if the imagined/imaged thing cannot be touched, heard, tasted, or smelled?

Of course, we need our senses to distinguish between what is real and what is not. Who said otherwise? We learn to separate reality from imagination at an early age. We use our senses plus our eyes to make these distinctions.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Because light traveling, according to Lessans, doesn't carry information, since the object is not reflecting an image (so to speak) that travels beyond the distance and brightness that allow said object to be seen.

Is light capable of carrying information?

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

The reason that traveling light in no way contributes to images generated by the mind is that vision is not a sense organ. The optic nerve is not like the other sense organs, which receive and transmit external stimuli.

Point number 1: The link you provide does not support your position. It refers to "the optic nerve's ability to transmit visual information rapidly and efficiently to the brain". You deny that visual information is supplied to the brain. Your reference contradicts your position.

Point number 2: Nerves other than the optic nerve are myelinated. For instance, the auditory nerve is myelinated: "Myelin allows for the rapid and precise timing of action potential propagation along neuronal circuits and is essential for healthy auditory system function." Also, "Myelination is essential for the rapid propagation of action potentials along axons in both the central and peripheral nervous systems".

Point number 3: Note that there is this other similarity between the optic and olfactory nerves, the nerves for vision and smelling: "There are twelve pairs of cranial nerves (CN) that lead directly from the brain to various parts of the head, neck, and trunk. Ten of the twelve cranial nerves originate in the brainstem; the two that do not are CN I (olfactory nerve) and CN II (optic nerve)."

 

[steve_bank]

I'd forgotten about holograms. A hologram capture the reflected light off an object. Not a visual image.

I wonder how Pg thinks she can the hologram of an object without there being an actual image of the object.

 

[peacegirl]

What experiments (that I missed) prove we see in delayed time?

Have you suffered a recent blow to the head? Or have you been drinking to excess?

You should definitely seek medical help with your amnesia issues.

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,

What journey? It's not like we are waiting for photons to arrive 8.5 minutes later. The Sun has been emitting light for 4.6 billion years. As the Earth rotates, light from the Sun becomes visible depending on which side of the Earth we are on. There is no delay for 8.5 minutes.

...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.

No we wouldn't. We would see sunlight illuminate our surroundings in real time before the Sun came over the horizon.

1. Atmospheric refraction effect. The phenomenon of atmospheric refraction causes the Sun to appear higher in the sky than it actually is, leading to the observation of sunlight before the Sun comes over the horizon at dawn. This effect is particularly pronounced near the horizon, where the Sun's light rays enter the Earth's atmosphere at a shallow angle. As the light rays travel through the atmosphere, they are bent and refracted, causing the Sun to appear to rise earlier in the morning and set later in the evening. The extent of this effect can vary based on factors such as air temperature, atmospheric pressure, and humidity. For example, in warm, humid summer months, the effect of refraction can be stronger and more variable than in cooler, drier winter months. TimeAndDate+1

* 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?

This entire example is based on the idea that the ground at our feet is illuminated on either side by sunlight that left the Sun eight and a half minutes ago, and the shadow is pointing to where the Sun was. But why 8.5 minutes? The light from the Sun is here. It doesn't take 8.5 minutes for light to get here. It's just not illuminating this part of the Earth as it spins on its axis. That's how sundials work, no? They tell us the time of day depending on where the gnome casts a shadow. I don't see where this proves what you think it does. The Sun would have moved in real time, and we would be seeing the gnome casting a shadow in real time.

The Earth's rotation
The reason we see a shadow from a gnome in a sundial, even though the Sun has already moved in the sky, is due to the Earth's rotation and the Sun's apparent movement across the sky. As the Earth rotates, the Sun's position changes, causing the shadow cast by the gnomon to move in a predictable pattern that corresponds to the time of day. The gnomon must be aligned with the Earth's axis of rotation, pointing toward the North Star (Polaris) in the Northern Hemisphere, for maximum accuracy. The shadow of the gnomon's edge progressively aligns with different hour lines on the dial, indicating the time of day. This relationship allows sundial makers to calculate the precise angles for hour lines, ensuring the sundial accurately tells the time.

Wikipedia+5

 

[peacegirl]

Now Pg is down to 'if Lessans is true'.

I said "if" to placate everyone. They don't like my use of the term "when." It makes them bristle at the mere thought he could be right.

If what I say true the Sun goes around the Earth you will all have your tails between you legs.

"when Lessans is proven to be right after all" I will be far too busy watching the demons figure skating, to worry about where my tail is.