Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Presupposing efferent vision while trying to work out your model is expected. However, you must be ready to abandon the model and start over as soon as you hit a brick wall with observed reality. You may also adjust the presupposition, provided it remains coherent.
Meaning, any model that is accurate will not require changes to any observed, tested, and repeated phenomena or known laws. Any conclusion that is accurate will explain all examples of observed reality.
A good example is the Moons of Jupiter observation, which remains unexplainable by efferent vision. So, you either need to adjust the efferent vision conclusion, or you must find a model for efferent vision that includes an explanation for this observation.
|
No, the moons of Jupiter observation is just that, an observation. The explanation as to what is happening is in contradiction to the efferent model. All I need to do is show you that this model is based on physical properties. There is no teleporting here. If this model shows promise, and is finally confirmed valid through more empirical testing, then it's up to scientist to revise their previous explanations accordingly. It's not up to me to do this. |
It is up to you to explain why Lessans' model is correct when the observations of the moons of Jupiter,
and every other single astronomical observation,
flatly contradicts real-time seeing.
Of course you HAVE no explanation; nor could you have one. These astronomical observations prove that we see light, and see it in delayed time. If Lessans' model were correct, we could not possibly see the moons of Jupiter, and all other astronomical bodies, the way that we actually see them. Therefore Lessans' model goes to the trash bin. So sorry!