Freethought & Rationalism Archive

perfessor · 08-12-2007, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amedeo

The following is a test question for those who believe in what the atronomers say, as when they state the distance between the real earth on which we stand [or some of us do] and the real moon at a particular time of the year [for people who are not lunatics].

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amedeo

If the stars we see are luminous points in our visual consciousness, not physical substances outside the physical eyes, and if such stars are sighted by astronomers in order to determine how far they are from the earth, how is it possible for the claims of the astronomers to be true (that is, about physical stars)???

Once again, people who are not lunatics and have their feet on the ground know that the measurement is not done with a yardstick, the moon is sighted, but the moon or any planet or any star THAT WE SEE is not a physical thing -- which is rather clear when you say that you are looking at a star whose light is reaching your eyes now, a light which the star was emitting one million years ago.
Do you get get? If light travels, there cannot be simultaneity between the light you are receiving and the light which was emitted. You are not seeing a star back one million years ago. The star you see is not the light-emitter of either a million years ago or of today. (The light which the star would be emitting today would not be received for a million years.)

How on earth or in hell CAN an astronomer find the real distance between the earth and the moon on which a rocket can land, when the moon he sees NOW (or at any particular time) is not the physical thing on which one can land.

I am not interested in the academic credentials anyone may have or not to have; I am interested in finding out anybody's ABILITY to ANSWER a question, if he believes that the astronomers have true knowledge of the distances in question. The ability to answer the question shows the mental crediantial of the present readers.

Ahh, it is becoming clearer now. You are, in fact, asking a philosophical question. Yes it is true, as you observe, that the star we are "seeing" is not really there. It could have gone supernova in the dozen/hundred/thousand/milllion years since the light we presently see was emitted. However, the conclusions we reach about the star are no less valid - we understand that any statement we make about the star ("It is a red giant, stellar class 2b, 115 light years away, orbited by a companion star etc. etc.") refer to its state at the time the light was emitted, without bothering to say, at every other sentence, that the statement was only "really" true 115 years ago, or whatever.

Is that what you are talking about?

Imagine this scenario: You and your wife/husband/significant other are living, for the moment, on different continents. No phone or internets (like it was 150 years ago). You get a letter in the mail - it was mailed six weeks ago. Do you bother to read it? Does it contain any true facts?

Amedeo · 08-12-2007, 02:37 PM

re # 21

The sun you see is not the physical sun.

A star which you see NOW and is 1 million light-years away is NOT the star which started emitting light 1 million years ago. You are NOT seeing the physical body that started emitting light 1 million years ago. Your vision does not go BACK in time. You are not visually at the source of light which is reaching your physical eyes now. So, what is THAT luminous body in the sky, toward which you can turn a telescope?

If you blink uoue eyes, you see or do not see. When you see a star, you are not seeing a body which is literally in front of yoir eyes a great distance away.

Baalazel · 08-12-2007, 02:39 PM

Allow me to throw rocks at your head. Asssuming the head I aimed at will not be the head the rock strikes you will be in no danger.

Baal

TNorthover · 08-12-2007, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amedeo

The sun you see is not the physical sun.

You see the light emitted by the physical sun. From that you can deduce properties of the physical sun. This isn't new or misunderstood.

Wretchosoft · 08-12-2007, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amedeo

The following is a test question for those who believe in what the atronomers say, as when they state the distance between the real earth on which we stand [or some of us do] and the real moon at a particular time of the year [for people who are not lunatics].

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amedeo

If the stars we see are luminous points in our visual consciousness, not physical substances outside the physical eyes, and if such stars are sighted by astronomers in order to determine how far they are from the earth, how is it possible for the claims of the astronomers to be true (that is, about physical stars)???

Once again, people who are not lunatics and have their feet on the ground know that the measurement is not done with a yardstick, the moon is sighted, but the moon or any planet or any star THAT WE SEE is not a physical thing -- which is rather clear when you say that you are looking at a star whose light is reaching your eyes now, a light which the star was emitting one million years ago.
Do you get get? If light travels, there cannot be simultaneity between the light you are receiving and the light which was emitted. You are not seeing a star back one million years ago. The star you see is not the light-emitter of either a million years ago or of today. (The light which the star would be emitting today would not be received for a million years.)

How on earth or in hell CAN an astronomer find the real distance between the earth and the moon on which a rocket can land, when the moon he sees NOW (or at any particular time) is not the physical thing on which one can land?

I am not interested in the academic credentials anyone may have or not to have; I am interested in finding out anybody's ABILITY to ANSWER a question, if he believes that the astronomers have true knowledge of the distances in question. The ability to answer the question shows the mental credentials of the present readers.
-----
Should anyone get the feeling that the astronomers are not speaking the truth, I bet they are going to be told that they are anti-semites, obtuse people who do not know that p implies p, that 0.999... = 1, that a straight line is the distance between two points, and that they cannot tell the difference between a real body and a visual body, that have has fake credentials, and non-god knows what else!*** Why, the ADL [Academic Defaming League] will come upon the astronomers with divine vengeance.
______________________
*** P.S. I had forgotten: plagiarist.

Any object you see is not actually that object, but the light reflected off that object. A split-second passes between the object being hit by the light and the light reaching your eyes. Therefore, our eyes are useless.

Do you see how ridiculous this is?

Wretchosoft · 08-12-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amedeo

re # 21

The sun you see is not the physical sun.

A star which you see NOW and is 1 million light-years away is NOT the star which started emitting light 1 million years ago. You are NOT seeing the physical body that started emitting light 1 million years ago. Your vision does not go BACK in time. You are not visually at the source of light which is reaching your physical eyes now. So, what is THAT luminous body in the sky, toward which you can turn a telescope?

If you blink uoue eyes, you see or do not see. When you see a star, you are not seeing a body which is literally in front of yoir eyes a great distance away.

I am sorry, but you don't need to dress up your claims with astronomy. Just state them in their raw form. From what I've seen, this looks pretty damned trivial.

perfessor · 08-12-2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wretchosoft

I am sorry, but you don't need to dress up your claims with astronomy. Just state them in their raw form. From what I've seen, this looks pretty damned trivial.

No, no, it's really very deep. It must be deep, he has a PhD.

Next, I'd like to ask a geography expert if it is possible to wade in the same river twice?

Wretchosoft · 08-12-2007, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perfessor

No, no, it's really very deep. It must be deep, he has a PhD.

Next, I'd like to ask a geography expert if it is possible to wade in the same river twice?

:rolling:

TNorthover · 08-12-2007, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perfessor

Next, I'd like to ask a geography expert if it is possible to wade in the same river twice?

Or what the best shade of blue to use colouring in the sea is.:devil1:

skepticalbip · 08-12-2007, 03:08 PM

It is a real shame that philosophy majors are not required to take any real science courses during their education. Although philosophy is an interesting study, semantic words games are only useful for con men in scamming their marks or for conning yourself into believing that you actually understand something.

My funniest experience in a philosophy class was listening to the prof. (yeah, another PhD) explain his understanding of relativity.

(My major was physics so his explanation was especially funny to me.)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-12-2007, 02:37 PM	#22
Amedeo Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: US Citizen (edited) Posts: 1,948	re # 21 The sun you see is not the physical sun. A star which you see NOW and is 1 million light-years away is NOT the star which started emitting light 1 million years ago. You are NOT seeing the physical body that started emitting light 1 million years ago. Your vision does not go BACK in time. You are not visually at the source of light which is reaching your physical eyes now. So, what is THAT luminous body in the sky, toward which you can turn a telescope? If you blink uoue eyes, you see or do not see. When you see a star, you are not seeing a body which is literally in front of yoir eyes a great distance away.

08-12-2007, 02:39 PM	#23
Baalazel Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: South Alabama Posts: 649	Allow me to throw rocks at your head. Asssuming the head I aimed at will not be the head the rock strikes you will be in no danger. Baal

08-12-2007, 03:08 PM	#30
skepticalbip Contributor Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Searching for reality on the long and winding road Posts: 12,976	It is a real shame that philosophy majors are not required to take any real science courses during their education. Although philosophy is an interesting study, semantic words games are only useful for con men in scamming their marks or for conning yourself into believing that you actually understand something. My funniest experience in a philosophy class was listening to the prof. (yeah, another PhD) explain his understanding of relativity. (My major was physics so his explanation was especially funny to me.)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.