A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Regardless of whether whether light has to reach the eye in order to see, or it doesn't, does not erase the [possible] truth of efferent vision. You are trying to discredit him based on this one paragraph, and I'm not going to let you do it.

I see. So even you can no longer hand-wave away the contradictions in Lessans' book, and the contradiction between what you state and what he wrote. Well done! You are finally conceding that it's all bollocks.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When something is further away, it takes longer to reach the same point than it does when it takes a shorter amount of time to reach that same point.

Really desperate now, are we, peacegirl? No, peacegirl, the orbits of the moons of Jupiter do not change when Jupiter and the earth are farther away from each other. The oribtal mechanics have been quite well understood since Newton. Sorry, try again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Really desperate now, are we, peacegirl? No, peacegirl, the orbits of the moons of Jupiter do not change when Jupiter and the earth are farther away from each other. The oribtal mechanics have been quite well understood since Newton. Sorry, try again.

If you're so positive it's true, why are you against other experiments? The most that could happen is that it would confirm, once and for all, that we don't see in real time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Thank you. Now let's follow through on the implications of this. At time T1 the ball is blue, and film in the camera is forming a real-time blue image on the basis of the wavelength of the blue light present at the lens/camera, correct?

Next question: How did that blue light get there?

Light travels. So at time T-1 (a moment before T1) that light was presumably still blue and had not quite reached the lens/camera, and yet the ball at T-1 was red. So where did that blue light come from?

Oh dear. It looks like you are indeed going to ignore this, Peacegirl.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just maybe they were furthest behind the predicted eclipses because of a miscalculation. All I am saying is that in order to prove something true it needs to be replicated. It's very convenient to make all other experiments confirm the original hypothesis.

peacegirl, it would be very strange if this were a miscalculation, because this experiment determined the speed of light. It was a bit off (a good 20%), but given how crude the experiment was, that is quite a success! If this effect was not real, why did the measurement give a roughly correct answer for the correct speed of light? Perhaps now you will claim there were two miscalculations - one for the prediction of the eclipse, and one mistake when calculating the inferred speed of light?

There are various other observations - such as the annual aberration of light, which imply our vision of distant objects cannot have a time delay. Would you care to address that one next?

Working scientists do not tend to repeat these exact experiments (although they certainly have been, numerous times, and are sometimes even used as learning tools for students - see a post below). We have provided them to you, simply because it is something easy for you to understand, as these old experiments tend to be quite simple. They also let us talk about what we see, rather than simply measuring light (rather than distinguishing vision and light, because everyone very quickly realised we see via light, except it seems for you).

[Dragar]

Incidentally, from browsing around on the internet, it appears the Swedish astronomer Pehr Wilhelm Wargentin in the mid 18thC used Roemer/Huygens finite speed of light for his "Tabulae pro calculandis eclipsibus satellitum Jovis" - tables for the Jovian moons, predicting when their eclipses would take place. They were the most accurate tables around for quite a long time, which they would not have been the case had there been some sort of error in the measurements.

These tables were so accurate that they were used by Laplace and Lagrange to argue for the motion of Jupiter's moons, in fact (which likely means nothing to peacegirl, but should impress people who know a little history of science).

[Dragar]

This is quite an interesting little article. Halley apparently attempted to confirm the finite speed of light using Jupiter's other moons, and found the results consistent. Cassini was terribly opposed to the idea, and Halley ended up rather unwillingly criticising Cassini's objections (and poor calculations of the other moons of Jupiter, it appears!).

[Dragar]

And hey, look here! If you are feeling adventurous, you can learn how to do the calculation for determining the speed of light via the moons of Jupiter yourself, using some tables of more modern observations of Io. I'm not sure where those tables come from, so if you doubt them we could poke around the NASA website (or ESO, or somewhere famous) for more well respected ones.

So, have we repeated the experiment? You bet we have.

You can't dodge this. Sorry.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you're so positive it's true, why are you against other experiments? The most that could happen is that it would confirm, once and for all, that we don't see in real time.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the Jupiter experiment is NOT the only experiment that has been done. There have been tens of thousands of experiments; EVERY SINGLE DAY there is a new experiment, with equipment that functions perfectly (like radar and GPS) but would fail to function as observed, if they would function at all, if Lessans were right. This fact, so devastating to Lessans' position, has been REPEATEDLY pointed out to you, peacegirl. Do you really expect us not to notice your rank dishonesty?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

it takes longer to reach the same point than it does when it takes a shorter amount of time to reach that same point.

Really, it takes longer when it takes longer?

You do realize that's exactly what you said, right?

And do you really think nobody in the last 400 or so years has replicated the Jupiter Moons observation?

[davidm]

Peacegirl, from that same linked paper on Jupiter's moons, there is the following. Do you not recall this being discussed in this thread?

Fast Flickering Lanterns
The problem is, all these astronomical techniques do not have the appeal of Galileo’s idea of two guys with lanterns. It would be reassuring to measure the speed of a beam of light between two points on the ground, rather than making somewhat indirect deductions based on apparent slight variations in the positions of stars. We can see, though, that if the two lanterns are ten miles apart, the time lag is of order one-ten thousandth of a second, and it is difficult to see how to arrange that. This technical problem was solved in France about 1850 by two rivals, Fizeau and Foucault, using slightly different techniques. In Fizeau’s apparatus, a beam of light shone between the teeth of a rapidly rotating toothed wheel, so the “lantern” was constantly being covered and uncovered. Instead of a second lantern far away, Fizeau simply had a mirror, reflecting the beam back, where it passed a second time between the teeth of the wheel. The idea was, the blip of light that went out through one gap between teeth would only make it back through the same gap if the teeth had not had time to move over significantly during the round trip time to the far away mirror. It was not difficult to make a wheel with a hundred teeth, and to rotate it hundreds of times a second, so the time for a tooth to move over could be arranged to be a fraction of one ten thousandth of a second. The method worked. Foucault’s method was based on the same general idea, but instead of a toothed wheel, he shone the beam on to a rotating mirror. At one point in the mirror’s rotation, the reflected beam fell on a distant mirror, which reflected it right back to the rotating mirror, which meanwhile had turned through a small angle. After this second reflection from the rotating mirror, the position of the beam was carefully measured. This made it possible to figure out how far the mirror had turned during the time it took the light to make the round trip to the distant mirror, and since the rate of rotation of the mirror was known, the speed of light could be figured out. These techniques gave the speed of light with an accuracy of about 1,000 miles per second.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Natural.atheist, your responses are worse than Davidm's, and that's saying somethin. I really feel bad that your posts will be ignored, but there's nothing else I can think of to make you change the way you respond. I am not saying to accept what I say at face value, but I am saying you need to express any argument you have in a nice way. If you can't do that, it is your loss because I won't be reading your posts. P.S. This radio lab is supposed to discredit Lessans claims? Isn't that the purpose of the link? I could not find anything that proved Lessans was wrong. So now it is up to you to prove your theory, not me? I am not going to be put to task for something that someone made up. Sorry.

peacegirl, the radiolab link is not supposed to discredit Lessans claims. His claims fall on their own lack of merit. This thread has become about you. By now you have repeated your broken record at least several dozen times. We've all heard it. We've all examined it a hundred different ways. Lessans was a narcissistic moron. But this thread is not about Lessans. It hasn't been about Lessans for a very long time.

This thread is about you. And your broken record or the loop that you are stuck in that you can't break out of. The radio lab link was to try to get you to consider for one second that you are stuck in a loop in that same way that the poor woman at the start of the radiolab show was stuck in her recurring two minute loop, as her family stood by. And it didn't matter if they made fun of her or taunted her or whatever, because two minutes later, she would start over again.

It's Tuesday! (Transient Global Amnesia) -...

Everyone here is way beyond thinking that Lessans has one little tiny thing at all to offer the world. They think he was a giant waste of oxygen. The quest here is to try to figure out your mental illness. It doesn't matter if you respond to my posts. I really don't care. As long as you keep posting to anybody you expose your illness for analysis. That is far more interesting then the nonsense Lessans wrote. Since you don't appear to be lucid enough to even quote it correctly anyway, such as it is.

Carry on, don't mind me. I'm more interested in what others think about your illness. You are blind to your own disease. Apparently only being able to see "efferently" does not allow you to look inward.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Regardless of whether whether light has to reach the eye in order to see, or it doesn't, does not erase the [possible] truth of efferent vision. You are trying to discredit him based on this one paragraph, and I'm not going to let you do it. Just maybe they were furthest behind the predicted eclipses because of a miscalculation. All I am saying is that in order to prove something true it needs to be replicated. It's very convenient to make all other experiments confirm the original hypothesis.

As bad as Lessans claims are, you are not helping him one bit. Your mental confusion, unwillingness to admit he was wrong about various things, has done far more to discredit Lessans. Not that he has all that much to offer anyway.

But the kicker here is your obvious mental illness. I have no idea how you think having a book pitched by an obvious lunatic is gonna make people interested in reading that book. You are far less coherent than Lessans himself.

Nobody here thinks for one second that much of anything Lessans claims has one tiny chance of being "proved". It's mostly about gawking at the crazy person babbling on their soap box in the town square.

I'm not insulting you peacegirl. I'm trying to get you to get help. You need it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When something is further away, it takes longer to reach the same point than it does when it takes a shorter amount of time to reach that same point. Therefore, couldn't this be the explanation for why it took longer to see the eclipse? I am really not that interested in whether you could even consider the possibility of there being another explanation because I doubt you can.

So here peacegirl understands that it takes time to traverse a distance but she is incapable of considered that what is traversing that distance is light, and then connecting the dots and realizing that the perception of what was going on with the moons of Jupiter was the "afferent" or inward processing of the sensed light from the moons as it traveled the distance.

She will loop around this indefinitely, just like the poor lady in the radiolab episode, as she reset her perception of reality every two minutes and it didn't matter what anybody told her. Two minutes later she was back to where she started. It is fascinating to watch. It is hard for a mentally healthy person to fathom what is going on. It's like trying to place yourself in an M.C. Escher drawing.

peacegirl, get help.

[Vivisectus]

When something is further away, it takes longer to reach the same point than it does when it takes a shorter amount of time to reach that same point. Therefore, couldn't this be the explanation for why it took longer to see the eclipse?

Indeed it is - it takes longer for the light to reach us. That is exactly the point. So, if it takes longer for us to see it because of the distance, then we are not seeing directly. The delay is due to the speed of light - we have to wait for it to reach us.

This is clear empirical evidence that direct sight is incorrect. We know how far Jupiter is - we have even sent unmanned probes on close flybys to have a look at it from close by. It matches the difference we observe in light minutes.

It directly contradicts Lessans claims about sight, but there it is, in reality, observed and measured.

Do you finally see now?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I see. So even you can no longer hand-wave away the contradictions in Lessans' book, and the contradiction between what you state and what he wrote. Well done! You are finally conceding that it's all bollocks.

It is not bollocks. I am trying to tell you that you can't dismiss his observations because on this one comment. I believe he was trying to show that sight is not dependent on interpreting any signals coming from light itself. If you can't accept that this is what he meant (nothing else), then it's you that is doing the hand-waving. (Note: There is never a time that we can take a photograph of anything without light striking the lens, therefore light has to be present at the same time the eyes see, or else we couldn't see it or take a photograph).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl, from that same linked paper on Jupiter's moons, there is the following. Do you not recall this being discussed in this thread?

Very cool experiment, and I applaud their efforts to determine the exact speed of light.

[peacegirl]

This is an interesting article which discloses the flagrant disregard for objective scientific research.

New Discovery Shakes the Foundation of Cancer Research
Posted By Dr. Mercola | October 15 2011 | 16,559 views

Story at-a-glance
Two widely cited, published cancer research studies contain fabricated data, will be retracted
The Mayo Clinic concluded that data about harnessing the immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated, resulting in the retraction of 17 papers in nine research journals
Cancer research in the United States needs to be scrutinized, as much is money-driven and based on developing new drugs
By Dr. Mercola

In a scandal that has reverberated around the world of cancer research, the Office of Research Integrity at the U.S. Department of Health found that a Boston University cancer scientist fabricated his findings. His work was published in two journals in 2009, and he’s been ordered to retract them. But important studies by other scientists like those at the Mayo Clinic, who based their work on his findings, could now make 10 years of their studies worthless, according to commentary in Gaia Health.

It seems fairly evident that the cancer industrial complex is a highly lucrative, well-oiled system that tends to support funding for expensive drug treatments that don't address the cause of the problem, and have yet to make a significant dent in the decrease of the overall cancer rate in the US despite investing hundreds of billions of dollars. Much of the support comes from flawed and biased "research" studies that support the use of expensive drugs as detailed in the featured articles.

Researchers, too, are well aware of the notoriety and money to be found in cancer research … particularly what may be deemed successful cancer research (which unfortunately is often measured by the discovery of new drug treatments). But, as with many areas of medical research, it's important to read between the lines of "scientifically proven" studies, even those that are well accepted.

Often what you'll find is the research gives the perception of science when really it is a heavily manipulated process designed to control and deceive. Case in point, here again we have an example of widely accepted, published research that turned out to be fabricated.

10 Years of Cancer Research Down the Drain

The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at the U.S. Department of Health reported in August 2011 that final action has been taken against Sheng Wang, PhD, of Boston University School of Medicine, Cancer Research Center. ORI states:

"The Respondent engaged in research misconduct by fabricating data that were included in two (2) published papers."

This includes:

Oncogene February 2009, which found that HIC1, a protein thought to suppress tumor growth, is a "central molecule in a novel mechanism controlling cell growth and that the disruption of this HIC1-mediated pathway may lead to abnormal cell proliferation and, ultimately, cancer."
Molecular Endocrinology December 2009, which found "reintroducing HIC1 into resistant breast cancer cells restored their sensitivity to the estrogen antagonists, indicating the existence of a novel regulatory mechanism for growth control of breast cancer cells."
Specifically, six of the eight figures in the Oncogene paper and six of the seven figures in the Molecular Endocrinology study were said to contain data from fabricated experiments. Though Wang is now required to retract the papers, and he reportedly stopped working for Boston University in July, he will only be ineligible for federal funding for 2 years.

Further, the fabricated research may continue to live on, as it has been cited by other studies and once a finding is accepted in the medical community, it's very hard to make it go away. Unfortunately, scientific retractions are actually becoming increasingly common.

As the Wall Street Journal reported:

"Just 22 retraction notices appeared in 2001, but 139 in 2006 and 339 last year. Through seven months of this year, there have been 210, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science, an index of 11,600 peer-reviewed journals world-wide …

At the Mayo Clinic, a decade of cancer research, partly taxpayer-funded, went down the drain when the prestigious Minnesota institution concluded that intriguing data about harnessing the immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated. Seventeen scholarly papers published in nine research journals had to be retracted. A researcher, who protests his innocence, was fired. In another major flameout, 18 research journals have said they are planning to retract a total of 89 published studies by a German anesthesiologist …"

Fabricated Research is More Common Than You Might Think

Peer-reviewed research published in medical journals gets the golden star of approval in the media, yet many, if not most, of the findings are incredibly misleading. One of the best exposé's into this muddled system came from none other than Dr. Marcia Angell, who was the former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

In her book The Truth about Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, she exposed many examples of why medical studies often cannot be trusted, and said flat out:

"Trials can be rigged in a dozen ways, and it happens all the time."

For instance, in 2009 Dr. Scott Reuben, who was a well-respected, prominent anesthesiologist, former chief of acute pain of the Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass. and a former professor at Tufts University's medical school, allegedly fabricated the data for 21 studies!

Dr. Reuben succeeded in getting numerous studies published, and those studies were accepted as fact and swayed the prescribing habits of doctors. It was only due to a routine audit raising a few red flags that a larger investigation was later launched.

So how did those false studies, or any studies for that matter, become worthy of being published? Part of the problem may be the peer-review process itself, as this puts researchers in charge of policing other researchers' results, and most do not want to insult a fellow researcher's work with negative comments.

As written in Gaia Health:

"It's all about money. Get published in a major medical journal and your future is made. Most peer reviewers are doing their own studies. That's what makes them peers. They want to be able to publish. Therefore, they are not particularly inclined to make more than perfunctory negative comments. Obviously, they don't want to alienate the authors of papers, since they either are or hope to become published themselves.

Peer review is a farce. The only kind of review that makes real sense is professional independent reviewers. Yet, for decades we've had peer review trotted out as the be-all and end-all in determining the legitimacy of papers. It's been unquestioned, while a little examination of the concept demonstrates that it's nearly certain to result in fraudulent work being passed as good science."

It's almost impossible to find out what happens in the vetting process, as peer reviewers are unpaid, anonymous and unaccountable. And although the system is based on the best of intentions, it lacks consistent standards and the expertise of the reviewers can vary widely from journal to journal.

Given that cancer research is such a lucrative business right now -- the National Cancer Institute, which gave the grant money to support Dr. Sheng Wang's fabricated research, had a $5.1 billion budget for fiscal year 2010 -- the stakes are exceptionally high. So it stands to reason that it may be subject to even more fraud and manipulation than less lucrative research prospects.

As The Economist reported, there were more new cancer drugs in development in 2010 than any other therapeutic area. Drug makers are well aware that a blockbuster cancer drug could easily earn them profits in the billions, even if the drug is only borderline effective. It is abundantly clear that profit is a primary motive of these companies so it should not be a surprise that they have moved in this direction, and this is where the abundance of research is focused as well.

Why You Might Want to Think Twice Before Donating to Anti-Cancer Charities

A lot of people put their faith in charity organizations like the American Cancer Society (ACS), dutifully donating money to help in the "war on cancer." But in the report titled American Cancer Society—More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, plainly lays to bare the many conflicts of interest that hamper the effectiveness of this organization.

For example, the ACS has close financial ties to both makers of mammography equipment and cancer drugs. But that's just for starters. Other conflicts of interest include ties to, and financial support from, the pesticide-, petrochemical-, biotech-, cosmetics-, and junk food industries—the very industries whose products are the primary contributors to cancer!

The ACS, along with the National Cancer Institute, virtually exclusively focus on cancer research and the diagnosis and chemical treatment of cancer. Preventive strategies, such as avoiding chemical exposures, receive virtually no consideration at all.

"Giant corporations, which profited handsomely while they polluted air, water, the workplace, and food with a wide range of carcinogens, remain greatly comforted by the silence of the ACS. This silence reflected a complex of mindsets fixated on diagnosis, treatment, and basic genetic research, together with ignorance, indifference, and even hostility to prevention. Not surprisingly, the incidence of cancer over past decades has escalated, approximately parallel to its increased funding," Dr. Epstein writes.

[Dragar]

Yes, it's probably corporate greed that wrecked our observations of Jupiter's moons, or annual abberation of light, or the colour change of distant supernovae.

[LadyShea]

Definitely 18th Century astronomers and thousands of laypeople since then are all corrupt.

peacegirl, what part of "You can do this yourself" is eluding you?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is an interesting article which discloses the flagrant disregard for objective scientific research.

The flagrant disregard? This was one guy. You act like this one case indicates all of science is suspect!

Science is not perfect, and scientists are people-some of which will have ulterior motives and strong biases- but does tend to self correct over time due to replication efforts.

The fabricated research was published only 2 years ago, and already has been discovered. There is an entire government department to look at things, the Office of Research Integrity. It's possible there was a whistleblower in the lab since the researcher's own university launched the investigation (Boston University obviously cares for integrity in their halls!). Really, there is no reason to think there is widespread disregard for the scientific process.

The ORI’s determination of research misconduct came after an investigation initiated by Boston University, according to a statement issued by Ober. The University would not release details of how suspicions first arose nor when the investigation began.

Also, one researcher's or one labs findings are not the entirety of data or knowledge found in any field of science:

But researchers say the impending retractions will not significantly impact the field’s understanding of HIC1’s role in tumor suppression, as the papers’ basic findings have been shown in other studies.

“This will not impact our paper, although it is, of course, very concerning,” Susan Cohn, professor of Pediatrics at the University of Chicago who cited the Oncogene paper, said in an email.

“Even if their conclusion [that HIC1 requires interaction with Brg1 to control cell-growth-related genes] was not correct, other studies have demonstrated that Brg1 can interact with other tumor suppressors, such as Prohibitin and TopBP,” added Danuta Radzioch, professor of medicine at McGill University in Montreal who also cited the Oncogene paper, in an email. Cancer Researcher Fabricated Data | The Scientist

Really, you're grasping at straws, trying to compare current, cutting edge genetic cancer research to hundreds of years and thousands of experiments in dozens of fields done on light and sight. That was an attempt at deflection so you can continue to keep your head in the sand and avoid answering questions.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not bollocks. I am trying to tell you that you can't dismiss his observations because on this one comment. I believe he was trying to show that sight is not dependent on interpreting any signals coming from light itself. If you can't accept that this is what he meant (nothing else), then it's you that is doing the hand-waving. (Note: There is never a time that we can take a photograph of anything without light striking the lens, therefore light has to be present at the same time the eyes see, or else we couldn't see it or take a photograph).

Slipping back into your ever-recurring loop again, are we, peacegirl? So sad.

Let's take it slowly.

You say light has to be present at the camera, to take a photograph.

Lessans says that when God turns on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it immediately, but not see their neighbor holding a camera for eight and a half minutes.

This means the light is not at the camera. The camera, and the neighbor, have to wait.

This means -- obviously! -- that (according to Lessans) people see in real time, but cameras take pictures in delayed time. So now, to be consistent with your father's claims, you have to go back to original assertion that cameras take pictures in delayed time, while people see in real time.

Unfortunately for this extraordinarily stupid claim by Lessans, it's false. That's because if it were true, what we see, and what cameras photograph, would fail to match. But they do match. So Lessans is wrong.

Now, let's watch peacegirl babble some nonsense, cover her ears, stamp her feet, run around in circles, and then repeat earlier loop.

Waiting for loop to restart: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Very cool experiment, and I applaud their efforts to determine the exact speed of light.

Oh, thank you so much for your seal of approval, Your Highness. Funny how you act like this was the first time the experiment was presented to you, when in fact The Lone Ranger and others went over this experiment with you in minute detail for a considerable length of time in this thread.

Since you think the experiment is so cool, I'm sure you think it's cool what the experiment proved. It proved that: 1. We see in delayed time; 2. we see light; 3. The eyes are a sense organ.

I'm glad you now agree.

Oh, wait! Here comes that loop again!

5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe he was trying to show that sight is not dependent on interpreting any signals coming from light itself. If you can't accept that this is what he meant (nothing else), then it's you that is doing the hand-waving.

He was very emphatic about the real time, instantaneous seeing, peacegirl. This was the one area where he was very clear what he meant, as he kept expanding and restating his examples.

He was wrong about real time seeing, just admit it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Indeed it is - it takes longer for the light to reach us. That is exactly the point. So, if it takes longer for us to see it because of the distance, then we are not seeing directly. The delay is due to the speed of light - we have to wait for it to reach us.

This is clear empirical evidence that direct sight is incorrect. We know how far Jupiter is - we have even sent unmanned probes on close flybys to have a look at it from close by. It matches the difference we observe in light minutes.

It directly contradicts Lessans claims about sight, but there it is, in reality, observed and measured.

Do you finally see now?

Indeed, I overlooked making this point. Any experiment that shows an unexpected delay in seeing the moons of Jupiter, or in seeing anything else, automatically rules out real-time seeing.

It doesn't matter whether sight is afferent or efferent, it doesn't matter if we see the moons of Jupiter due to reflected light, or due to the light fairies carrying pieces of Io to our noses to be seen by our nostrils. The relevant point is that if Lessans were right, and we saw in real time, you could move Io and the other moons to any location you choose in the universe, and no matter where they went, when we looked at them in a telescope we would see them immediately. No delay of any kind, ever. That's what real time seeing means.

So, peacegirl, the moons of Jupiter experiment destroy real-time seeing. Sorry.