Can we blame her because she does not act from FW?How could she do otherwise? This is the crux of the matter. If we take determinism seriously then the answer is a chain of cause and effect stretching back to the initial conditions of the universe could have been appropriately different so that she would have done. There is an absurdity to blame under such conditions. But moral disapproval itself is an input into the environment that can do good sometimes. So sometimes it can be justified. But very often not. So why do we do it when there is no good reason to do it? Because we feel it's deserved. But then we're back to the absurd notion that blame can be deserved, when for a person to have done what they should have done they'd have needed a different chain of cause and effect stretching back to before they were born. Yes, I understand the principle involved. However, the entire scientific world has studied the properties of light since the dawn of man also and by trial and error have eventually discovered the actual properties and behaviors of photons. That should also be considered as antecedents in a deterministic chronology, especially in the area of science and physics in particular. GR and QM are no longer unsubstantiated beliefs open to falsification, this is consensus Theory (a description of a Law of Nature) and is used with unfailing success in tens of thousands of practical applications. The refusal to accept the consensus conclusions of the best minds mankind has produced and still argue against that which is demonstrably true (a provable antecedent) seems contrary to the definition of Determinism. It seems a willful refusal to accept any and all demonstrable facts known to the scientific community. How can one ignore currents facts and skip a century of knowledge and be in any way confident that what one proposes is a new revelatory discovery, no matter how satisfying this argument seems to the poster's psyche, especially when the "discovery" is not new at all, but was first proposed some 2000 years ago? How can one even argue that the properties of the eye has anything to do with particle physics?
I wonder if peacegirl is unable to say other than what she says, because her argument is compelled in the direction of greater satisfaction, such as approval from her father, which is an admirable motivation. Of course that does not make her (or her father's) statements true, just that they are sincere. What intrigues me is that the fear of discovering her father was wrong prevents her from seriously researching the issue, as that would compel her to act in a direction of lesser satisfaction of disapproval (or disappointment) from her father. Can we blame her because she does not act from FW? Peacegirl, photons travel as waves, regardless of intensity. A photon only becomes visible energy when its "wave function" is collapsed by observation. Traveling photons are the lightwaves (and their frequencies) and when those wave frequencies are in our visible range (of the electromagnetic spectrum) we observe the photon-wave as light containing the visible image of the emitter or the reflector. There is no difference if we look at the sun, the moon, our neighbor or just the difused light on a hazy day, everything that is illuminated by daylight is due to photons traveling from the sun (as waves). In the test of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, it was demonstrated that we can see the light of a distant star (the image of the star), even as it is still hidden by our sun and not in the direct line-of-sight, just as he had predicted. THAT TESTED AND PROVEN DISCOVERY IS WHAT CHANGED PHYSICS FOREVER. Now you come along and claim Einstein was wrong even as it was proven he was right. Please, try to "will" yourself to do some research on the behavior of photons. Use my sincere advice as an antecedent, indulge my sincere desire to assist in your quest for "knowledge".That doesn't change the fact that the star exists, and is just in a position where we can see its image even though it is not in direct sight. That happens also when we look in the mirror. We are not looking directly at the object, but the object is still present. If the object was gone, we would not be able to see an image. Peacegirl, the light(waves) still has to travel from the source to the observer. You cannot get around that FACT. You are under the false impression that vision consists of efferently seeing out, instead of afferently seeing by receiving light in. If you want to avoid being ridiculed, move in the the direction of greater satisfaction and verify that your proposal is physically possible, so that you can confidently state your case, without the risk of being considered a troll. I am very empathic and I feel terrible about having to destroy something that is clearly dear to your heart. But there is always time to expand your knowledge. I have gone through these stages myself, where I was sure my intuition and logical thought process was infallible, only to be "shown" that while my logic was ok, my intuitive premise was false. Such is the case here with your intuitive premise of efferent outward vision. It is a false premise and defending it just results in digging a deeper hole for yourself.
Calling it obvious doesn't make it any less wrong.It really is the no brainer of philosophy. See my reaction here].
Can we blame her because she does not act from FW?How could she do otherwise? This is the crux of the matter. If we take determinism seriously then the answer is a chain of cause and effect stretching back to the initial conditions of the universe could have been appropriately different so that she would have done. You, of course, only write this because you want to believe it's true. It's not true, as I've demonstrated. Even if you don't accept the demonstration as true, it's cearly possibly true, which is a defeater for your claims. It's very convenient for you to make claims that are not empirically testable, because then you can say stuff for no other reason than you want this stuff to be true.
This doesn't change particle physics, and this claim was not first proposed 2000 years ago; not the way he described it.Right, it was not first proposed 2,000 years ago. It has never been proposed by anyone except Lessans. Two thousand years ago, people did not know as much as we know; they had no way of measuring the speed of light, for instance. But no one back then would make such a daft claim as that if the sun were ignited in the sky we would see it immediately, but not our neighbors for eight and half minutes. The claim is laughably stupid. It's not only empirically wrong, it's not even logically possible. I should caution Write4U, since he seems inclined to engage peacegirl on this topic, that when she says, "this doesn't change particle physics," she knows otherwise. She was schooled otherwise for three and a half years at FF. To say that we see in real time changes so many things the world would be utterly unrecognizable. In fact, it would be unlivable. If we saw without a light time delay, it can easily be shown -- and was shown to her, by me among others -- that the surface temperature of the earth would be 10,000 degrees Farenheit. I'll leave it to others to explain why. It's quite fascinating.
I wonder if peacegirl is unable to say other than what she says, because her argument is compelled in the direction of greater satisfaction, such as approval from her father, which is an admirable motivation. Of course that does not make her (or her father's) statements true, just that they are sincere. What intrigues me is that the fear of discovering her father was wrong prevents her from seriously researching the issue, as that would compel her to act in a direction of lesser satisfaction of disapproval (or disappointment) from her father. Can we blame her because she does not act from FW? Peacegirl, photons travel as waves, regardless of intensity. A photon only becomes visible energy when its "wave function" is collapsed by observation. Traveling photons are the lightwaves (and their frequencies) and when those wave frequencies are in our visible range (of the electromagnetic spectrum) we observe the photon-wave as light containing the visible image of the emitter or the reflector. There is no difference if we look at the sun, the moon, our neighbor or just the difused light on a hazy day, everything that is illuminated by daylight is due to photons traveling from the sun (as waves). In the test of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, it was demonstrated that we can see the light of a distant star (the image of the star), even as it is still hidden by our sun and not in the direct line-of-sight, just as he had predicted. THAT TESTED AND PROVEN DISCOVERY IS WHAT CHANGED PHYSICS FOREVER. Now you come along and claim Einstein was wrong even as it was proven he was right. Please, try to "will" yourself to do some research on the behavior of photons. Use my sincere advice as an antecedent, indulge my sincere desire to assist in your quest for "knowledge".That doesn't change the fact that the star exists, and is just in a position where we can see its image even though it is not in direct sight. That happens also when we look in the mirror. We are not looking directly at the object, but the object is still present. If the object was gone, we would not be able to see an image. Peacegirl, the light(waves) still has to travel from the source to the observer. You cannot get around that FACT. You are under the false impression that vision consists of efferently seeing out, instead of afferently seeing by receiving light in. If you want to avoid being ridiculed, move in the the direction of greater satisfaction and verify that your proposal is physically possible, so that you can confidently state your case, without the risk of being considered a troll. I am very empathic and I feel terrible about having to destroy something that is clearly dear to your heart. But there is always time to expand your knowledge. I have gone through these stages myself, where I was sure my intuition and logical thought process was infallible, only to be "shown" that while my logic was ok, my intuitive premise was false. Such is the case here with your intuitive premise of efferent outward vision. It is a false premise and defending it just results in digging a deeper hole for yourself. As I said, Lessans had sound reasons for why he made this claim. You don't even know what his observations were so for you to say he has to be wrong is wrong. I agree that sometimes an intuitive premise can be incorrect, but I don't believe that he was in this case. I am not digging any hole for myself. If he was wrong, it will be proven in time. If he was right, that will also be proven in time.
If he was wrong, it will be proven in time. If he was right, that will also be proven in time.That ship has sailed, Lessans was proven wrong many years ago, and Lessans remains wrong.
Your posts indicate that you never understand this knowledge; you just thought you did. You cannot compare your intellectual capacity to Lessans, which is why your ignorance is so blatantly obvious. This brazenness of yours will one day come back to bite you in the ass.I am very glad that my intellectual capacity doesn't compare to Lessans, I would never want to be that dim. It's a good thing for Lessans that it doesn't take a great deal of education to shoot pool. At least he was good at something. As far as the ideas in Lessans book, yes, I'm glad that I don't agree with them, I wouldn't want to appear that dumb. Unbelievable!! You have gall to say the things you're saying. Not nearly as much Gall, as you have for repeating the nonsense in Lessans book, as if it were fact.
peacegirl. I agree that sometimes an intuitive premise can be incorrect, but I don’t believe that he was in this case.I am happy to hear that you have modified your stance from "untested factual certainty" to "intuitive belief" that Lessans was right. Hopefully, we can take a few more dispassionate steps in the right direction. It is a "factual certainty" (a tested and verified) fact that photons travel as waves @ "c", regardless of the source. This cannot be disputed, it IS a proven fact and every application which employs this principle is functional in accordance with that premise. This is NO LONGER an intuitive premise, it is a physical fact. It always takes light an amount of time (however small) before we can see it when it strikes our retina. We always see things as they were in the past, even as it appears that we see things as if they are in our present. Ask yourself, when you see a super nova of a distant star (an incredibly bright event), do you honestly believe that when you see this event, it is happening at the time you see it, or do you accept that the star ceased to exist thousands of years before we can actually observe it and we are in fact looking at a star which existed in the distant past, but is no longer there at all? What is a "light-year" and why would we use the term if the object itself can be observed instantaneously when it is sufficiently bright (intensity of light).
brightness, NOUN, 1.the intensity of light reflected or emitted by somethingand
light-year, NOUN, astronomy, a unit of astronomical distance equivalent to the distance that light travels in one year, which is 9.4607 × 1012 km (nearly 6 trillion miles).and
By studying the X-ray and infrared data together, astronomers were able to determine that the cause of the explosion witnessed nearly 2,000 years ago was a Type Ia supernova, in which an otherwise-stable white dwarf, or dead star, was pushed beyond the brink of stability when a companion star dumped material onto it. RCW 86 is approximately 8,000 light-years awayThe star had already ceased to exist as a star for 6000 years when we first observed it's existence 2000 years ago.
There is no point in rehashing this subject, as I already know what you believe. You do not know what Lessans' observations were or why he claimed what he did therefore it's an imbalanced discussion. Light travels, I never denied that.peacegirl. I agree that sometimes an intuitive premise can be incorrect, but I don’t believe that he was in this case.I am happy to hear that you have modified your stance from "untested factual certainty" to "intuitive belief" that Lessans was right. Hopefully, we can take a few more dispassionate steps in the right direction. It is a "factual certainty" (a tested and verified) fact that photons travel as waves @ "c", regardless of the source. This cannot be disputed, it IS a proven fact and every application which employs this principle is functional in accordance with that premise. This is NO LONGER an intuitive premise, it is a physical fact. It always takes light an amount of time (however small) before we can see it when it strikes our retina. We always see things as they were in the past, even as it appears that we see things as if they are in our present. Ask yourself, when you see a super nova of a distant star (an incredibly bright event), do you honestly believe that when you see this event, it is happening at the time you see it, or do you accept that the star ceased to exist thousands of years before we can actually observe it and we are in fact looking at a star which existed in the distant past, but is no longer there at all? What is a "light-year" and why would we use the term if the object itself can be observed instantaneously when it is sufficiently bright (intensity of light).brightness, NOUN, 1.the intensity of light reflected or emitted by somethingandlight-year, NOUN, astronomy, a unit of astronomical distance equivalent to the distance that light travels in one year, which is 9.4607 × 1012 km (nearly 6 trillion miles).andBy studying the X-ray and infrared data together, astronomers were able to determine that the cause of the explosion witnessed nearly 2,000 years ago was a Type Ia supernova, in which an otherwise-stable white dwarf, or dead star, was pushed beyond the brink of stability when a companion star dumped material onto it. RCW 86 is approximately 8,000 light-years awayThe star had already ceased to exist as a star for 6000 years when we first observed it's existence 2000 years ago.
1) Are you saying that the wavelength can be there without the photons being there?No Spacemonkey. I'm not saying that. So if you are claiming that the wavelength can be there at the retina before the photons have had time to travel to it, and you concede that the wavelength cannot be there without the photons also being there, then are you saying the photons at the retina got there by some means other than traveling there from the Sun? Is this what you are saying? (Yes or No!) Bump.
There is no point in rehashing this subject, as I already know what you believe. You do not know what Lessans' observations were or why he claimed what he did therefore it's an imbalanced discussion. Light travels, I never denied that. I don't believe this, EVERY KNOWLEDGEABLE SCIENTIST does. Lessans and you are the only ones to disagree. Get your facts straight peacegirl. If Lessans' belief was in any way different than what I just quoted (from the scientific community) then HE was wrong, and I do not need to read how he arrived at his conclusion. The premise of an Efferent eye is false, PERIOD. I mentioned before that Lessans idea is (nearly) 2000 years old. (Oddly someone else disagreed with that observation). Here is the proof:peacegirl. I agree that sometimes an intuitive premise can be incorrect, but I don’t believe that he was in this case.I am happy to hear that you have modified your stance from "untested factual certainty" to "intuitive belief" that Lessans was right. Hopefully, we can take a few more dispassionate steps in the right direction. It is a "factual certainty" (a tested and verified) fact that photons travel as waves @ "c", regardless of the source. This cannot be disputed, it IS a proven fact and every application which employs this principle is functional in accordance with that premise. This is NO LONGER an intuitive premise, it is a physical fact. It always takes light an amount of time (however small) before we can see it when it strikes our retina. We always see things as they were in the past, even as it appears that we see things as if they are in our present. Ask yourself, when you see a super nova of a distant star (an incredibly bright event), do you honestly believe that when you see this event, it is happening at the time you see it, or do you accept that the star ceased to exist thousands of years before we can actually observe it and we are in fact looking at a star which existed in the distant past, but is no longer there at all? What is a "light-year" and why would we use the term if the object itself can be observed instantaneously when it is sufficiently bright (intensity of light).brightness, NOUN, 1.the intensity of light reflected or emitted by somethingandlight-year, NOUN, astronomy, a unit of astronomical distance equivalent to the distance that light travels in one year, which is 9.4607 × 1012 km (nearly 6 trillion miles).andBy studying the X-ray and infrared data together, astronomers were able to determine that the cause of the explosion witnessed nearly 2,000 years ago was a Type Ia supernova, in which an otherwise-stable white dwarf, or dead star, was pushed beyond the brink of stability when a companion star dumped material onto it. RCW 86 is approximately 8,000 light-years awayThe star had already ceased to exist as a star for 6000 years when we first observed it's existence 2000 years ago.
The eye has been the subject of conflicting interpretations since antiquity. Many ancient physicians and philosophers believed in the idea of the active eye. Plato, for instance, wrote in the fourth century B. C. that light emanated from the eye, seizing objects with its rays. More metaphorically, Aristotle's disciple, Theophrastus, wrote that the eye had "the fire within." In saying this, he departed from the ideas of his teacher, since Aristotle was among the first to reject the extramission theory of vision. "In general, it is unreasonable to suppose that seeing occurs by something issuing from the eye," he declared. Aristotle advocated for a theory of intromission by which the eye received rays rather than directed them outward.http://web.stanford.edu/class/history13/earlysciencelab/body/eyespages/eye.html In what way does Lessans proposition differ from Plato?
1) Are you saying that the wavelength can be there without the photons being there?No Spacemonkey. I'm not saying that. So if you are claiming that the wavelength can be there at the retina before the photons have had time to travel to it, and you concede that the wavelength cannot be there without the photons also being there, then are you saying the photons at the retina got there by some means other than traveling there from the Sun? Is this what you are saying? (Yes or No!) Bump. The photons ARE there Spacemonkey, that's just the point. I already explained about the requirements for sight. You will never accept it because you keep referring back to the afferent account. You don't understand why the photons are at the eye, even though light has not reached Earth yet. This does not mean there is a gap because the light hasn't arrived so, according to your logic, how in the world can light be where it hasn't traveled to? I will repeat that the photoreceptors are already at the retina the instant our gaze is in the direction of the object because of the way the eyes work, not light. It's a closed system as I tried to explain. Nothing I say will work because you are convinced he was wrong. I am not going to keep repeating the same thing because you will continue to say this account is not possible. The only way this will be resolved is when scientists take this claim seriously and test it accurately.
There is no point in rehashing this subject, as I already know what you believe. You do not know what Lessans' observations were or why he claimed what he did therefore it's an imbalanced discussion. Light travels, I never denied that. I don't believe this, EVERY KNOWLEDGEABLE SCIENTIST does. Lessans and you are the only ones to disagree. Get your facts straight peacegirl. If Lessans' belief was in any way different than what I just quoted (from the scientific community) then HE was wrong, and I do not need to read how he arrived at his conclusion. The premise of an Efferent eye is false, PERIOD. I mentioned before that Lessans idea is (nearly) 2000 years old. (Oddly someone else disagreed with that observation). Here is the proof:peacegirl. I agree that sometimes an intuitive premise can be incorrect, but I don’t believe that he was in this case.I am happy to hear that you have modified your stance from "untested factual certainty" to "intuitive belief" that Lessans was right. Hopefully, we can take a few more dispassionate steps in the right direction. It is a "factual certainty" (a tested and verified) fact that photons travel as waves @ "c", regardless of the source. This cannot be disputed, it IS a proven fact and every application which employs this principle is functional in accordance with that premise. This is NO LONGER an intuitive premise, it is a physical fact. It always takes light an amount of time (however small) before we can see it when it strikes our retina. We always see things as they were in the past, even as it appears that we see things as if they are in our present. Ask yourself, when you see a super nova of a distant star (an incredibly bright event), do you honestly believe that when you see this event, it is happening at the time you see it, or do you accept that the star ceased to exist thousands of years before we can actually observe it and we are in fact looking at a star which existed in the distant past, but is no longer there at all? What is a "light-year" and why would we use the term if the object itself can be observed instantaneously when it is sufficiently bright (intensity of light).brightness, NOUN, 1.the intensity of light reflected or emitted by somethingandlight-year, NOUN, astronomy, a unit of astronomical distance equivalent to the distance that light travels in one year, which is 9.4607 × 1012 km (nearly 6 trillion miles).andBy studying the X-ray and infrared data together, astronomers were able to determine that the cause of the explosion witnessed nearly 2,000 years ago was a Type Ia supernova, in which an otherwise-stable white dwarf, or dead star, was pushed beyond the brink of stability when a companion star dumped material onto it. RCW 86 is approximately 8,000 light-years awayThe star had already ceased to exist as a star for 6000 years when we first observed it's existence 2000 years ago.
The eye has been the subject of conflicting interpretations since antiquity. Many ancient physicians and philosophers believed in the idea of the active eye. Plato, for instance, wrote in the fourth century B. C. that light emanated from the eye, seizing objects with its rays. More metaphorically, Aristotle's disciple, Theophrastus, wrote that the eye had "the fire within." In saying this, he departed from the ideas of his teacher, since Aristotle was among the first to reject the extramission theory of vision. "In general, it is unreasonable to suppose that seeing occurs by something issuing from the eye," he declared. Aristotle advocated for a theory of intromission by which the eye received rays rather than directed them outward.http://web.stanford.edu/class/history13/earlysciencelab/body/eyespages/eye.html In what way does Lessans proposition differ from Plato? Light emanating from the eye, seizing objects with its ray? Something issuing from the eye? :grrr: This is not even close to what Lessans claimed. This is why this discussion is going to go nowhere.
I mentioned before that Lessans idea is (nearly) 2000 years old. (Oddly someone else disagreed with that observation). Here is the proof:If I may interject some information from the book, I'm not sure Peacegirl is capable of explaining it correctly. Lessans never claimed that light emanated from the eye, but Lessans did claim that light was instantly in contact with the retina, when the brain looked out through the eyes. Lessans claimed that descriptive words were projected onto the objects being observed, and these words gave a false impression of the qualities of that object. So the one difference was that lessans did not claim the light from the eyes. Peacegirl has refined the ideas to eliminate distance from the equation. In Lessans description, the eyes were reduced to inert windows that the brain looks out through, and little else. Lessans also went on to claim that vision was not possible till the brain desired to "see" the source of a noise, or other stimuli outside the body. He illustrated this by claiming that if a child were raised in a dark, quiet room with no external stimuli, the person would not be able to see, no matter what age they were, because there would have been nothing to trigger the brains desire to see. Lessans claim that the brain looked out through the eyes was not accompanied by any explanation of how it could happen.The eye has been the subject of conflicting interpretations since antiquity. Many ancient physicians and philosophers believed in the idea of the active eye. Plato, for instance, wrote in the fourth century B. C. that light emanated from the eye, seizing objects with its rays. More metaphorically, Aristotle's disciple, Theophrastus, wrote that the eye had "the fire within." In saying this, he departed from the ideas of his teacher, since Aristotle was among the first to reject the extramission theory of vision. "In general, it is unreasonable to suppose that seeing occurs by something issuing from the eye," he declared. Aristotle advocated for a theory of intromission by which the eye received rays rather than directed them outward.http://web.stanford.edu/class/history13/earlysciencelab/body/eyespages/eye.html In what way does Lessans proposition differ from Plato?
The only way this will be resolved is when scientists take this claim seriously and test it accurately.Scientists have considered this claim seriously in the past, and have tested it accurately, and it has always failed. Lessans was wrong.
peacegirl, The photons ARE there Spacemonkey, that’s just the pointIt is not a question of WHEN photons ARE THERE, but of HOW did they GET THERE and HOW LONG did it take to BE there....
Daylight savings time?..
The only way this will be resolved is when scientists take this claim seriously and test it accurately.Scientists have considered this claim seriously in the past, and have tested it accurately, and it has always failed. Lessans was wrong. Ok, Lessans did not claim "afferent vision", where Aristotle already advocated for afferent "intromission". But in post #2619 I explained the false premise of Lessans proposal (as told by peacegirl). Perhaps we are looking too deep at Lessans' "instant vision" proposal. As long as the sun is shining, of course half of the earth is "bathed" in sunlight by the continual stream of photons emanating from the sun. It is these transient photons which we observe instantly as they hit our retina, because it is an "uninterrupted stream" of photons. Thus Lessans proposal translates into "when the sun shines (at least 8 1/2 minutes) before we open our eyes we see the (stream of) photons (light) instantly. Well, duuuuuh. But as peacegirl stated it, "when god were to turn on the sun at noon, we would instantly see that light, while we would have to wait 8 1/2 minutes before I can see my neighbor. That is obviously a false statement. And the claim that we need to wait 8 1/2 minutes before we see our neighbor is false. He is bathed in the same stream of photons and the reflected light may take an additional few nanseconds to reach our eye. Certainly NOT 8 1/2 minutes. The correct posit would be, "if god turned the sun on at noon, I and my neighbor would both have to wait 8 1/2 minutes before either could see the sun or each other. Where is the revolutionary discovery in this? A child of 10 can figure that out .
The only way this will be resolved is when scientists take this claim seriously and test it accurately.Scientists have considered this claim seriously in the past, and have tested it accurately, and it has always failed. Lessans was wrong. Ok, Lessans did not claim "afferent vision", where Aristotle already advocated for afferent "intromission". But in post #2619 I explained the false premise of Lessans proposal (as told by peacegirl). Perhaps we are looking too deep at Lessans' "instant vision" proposal. As long as the sun is shining, of course half of the earth is "bathed" in sunlight by the continual stream of photons emanating from the sun. It is these transient photons which we observe instantly as they hit our retina, because it is an "uninterrupted stream" of photons. Thus Lessans proposal translates into "when the sun shines (at least 8 1/2 minutes) before we open our eyes we see the (stream of) photons (light) instantly. Well, duuuuuh. Well no, it is not duuuuuuh Write4U. Again, you have no conception as to the reason for his claim, so this is a ridiculous conversation.
But as peacegirl stated it, "when god were to turn on the sun at noon, we would instantly see that light, while we would have to wait 8 1/2 minutes before I can see my neighbor. That is obviously a false statement.You know what, you might as well let this conversation go. You have no idea what Lessans was even talking about.
And the claim that we need to wait 8 1/2 minutes before we see our neighbor is false. He is bathed in the same stream of photons and the reflected light may take an additional few nanseconds to reach our eye. Certainly NOT 8 1/2 minutes.Huh? If it takes 81/2 minutes for the light to reach our neighbor, we will see him due to the same mechanism that would allow us to see the Sun instantly. Obviously, if the light did not strike him, we would not see him, so 81/2 minutes would have to be altered to the few nanoseconds that it takes. This does nothing to negate what Lessans was claiming.
The correct posit would be, "if god turned the sun on at noon, I and my neighbor would both have to wait 8 1/2 minutes before either could see the sun or each other. Where is the revolutionary discovery in this?That's not true. That is why he gave the example of the Sun. It only takes light to be at the object for us to see said object as long as it is bright enough and large enough to be seen, which are the requirements for sight in this very plausible account.
A child of 10 can figure that out .You're deluded.