A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

I sent a copy of my message sent from the "ask NASA" form to the JPL as well, just for good measure. The address I used was education@jpl.nasa.gov

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

OK, who wants to take this to the astronomy forum for peacegirl? Maybe she can explain to the big community of professional astronomers and astrophyscists over there how science has made "an honest mistake" in calculating how to send rockets to Mars -- an "honest mistake" in which, MIRACULOUSLY, all our ships rendezvous with Mars, despite the fact that, according to peacegirl and Lessans, all our calculations would have to be WRONG, since science makes its calculations on the assumption that we do not see in real time!

Science bases its calculations on the speed of light, not in delayed time. Mars has a large diameter so it might not matter if we include this differential of light in the calculation. We would still land there. It has to be more specific than an entire planet. How about an exact point?

Equatorial diameter of Mars: 6,792km or 4,220 miles.
Polar diameter of Mars: 6,752km or 4,196 miles.
Planet Diameter in KM
Mercury------------ 4,880
Venus -------------12,104
Earth --------------12,756
Mars ----------------6,794
Jupiter -----------142,984
Saturn -----------120,536
Uranus ------------51,118
Neptune -----------49,532
(Dwarf Planet Pluto --2,274)

Read more: What is the diameter of Mars

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you see the confusion? I am not arguing with the way they determine the location of Mars using the speed of light. I am arguing the case that they do not use the actual mathematical position of Mars based on delayed light when they factor into their equation the actual position of their target. The speed of light and this differential between apparent locations and actual locations [based on light] are two different things.

A car has been traveling East on I-10 for 2 hours at 50 miles an hour. Where is the car actually located peacegirl?

Without a starting or ending location (a known variable), you can't even begin a calculation of current location. There is not enough information to lay out a formula.

So, if not the apparent location, what could they possibly use as a known variable for any formula or calculations for the actual location of a planet?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I had posted that yesterday. She ignored it.

As per. my previous post, for Peacegirl no proof is enough.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Science bases its calculations on the speed of light, not in delayed time. Mars has a large diameter so it might not matter if we include this differential of light in the calculation. We would still land there. It has to be more specific than an entire planet. How about an exact point?

Equatorial diameter of Mars: 6,792km or 4,220 miles.
Polar diameter of Mars: 6,752km or 4,196 miles.
Planet Diameter in KM
Mercury------------ 4,880
Venus -------------12,104
Earth --------------12,756
Mars ----------------6,794
Jupiter -----------142,984
Saturn -----------120,536
Uranus ------------51,118
Neptune -----------49,532
(Dwarf Planet Pluto --2,274)

Read more: What is the diameter of Mars

The Rovers were landed in specific areas that had been selected prior to launch

2003 Mars Exploration Rovers
Landing sites for the two rovers have been selected (April 11, 2003): For Spirit, the Gusev Crater was selected, while Opportunity was chosen to land in Meridiani Terra (see map).

On January 4, 2004, 4:35 UT (January 3, 8:35 p.m. PST), the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit, after an interplanetary cruise of almost half a year and 487 million km (303 million miles) touched down softly on red planet Mars, in the intended landing site region, Gusev Crater, 184.8d W, 14.8d S. It had entered the Martian atmosphere at multiple bullet speed, slowed down by atmospheric friction and paracute, and eventually, buffered by airbags, fell down, bounced and rolled to its final landing place.

On January 16, 2004, just little more than a week and 12.5 million km (7.8 million miles) before arriving at Mars. After an interplanetary cruise of more than 6 month, Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity successfully touched down on January 25, 2004, 5:05 UT (January 24, 2004, 9:05 p.m. PST) at its intended landing site Meridiani Terra (2.07 S, 6.08 W).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl: In order to send spacecraft to Mars, we need to know precisely where Mars is, when we launch our rocket! Not "kinda, sorta" where it is, but precisely where it is. This is because we have to carry out complex mathematical calculations to determine where to point the rocket, so that, taking into account all sorts of factors like gravitation pull, orbital speed etc., the rocket eventually makes a rendezvous with Mars. Capice?

The point here, as I'm sure you understand but which I will now spell out so that there can be no evasion, is that Lessans and science DISAGREE on where Mars is located in the sky, when we launch our rocket!

Lessans says that Mars is located EXACTLY WHERE WE SEE IT IN THE SKY, because we are seeing it in real time! That is to say, the apparent location of Mars, and its actual location, are the same.

Science says that the apparent location of Mars, and its actual location, are different. Science says that when we look at the sky and see an image of Mars, we are seeing Mars as it was in the past; its actual location is somehwere further ahead in its orbit. We can calculate its actual location, science says, by taking into account the speed of light.

So, when we send our rockets to Mars -- bearing in mind we need to know precisely where Mars is actually located when we fire the rockets -- which caluclation do you think NASA uses?

Obviously, it uses the speed of light to calculate, but how do they know that what they are seeing is not the actual location? Do they see two images, the actual and the apparent?

Originally Posted by davidm

The ACTUAL calculation that NASA uses, when aiming the rocket, is based on the SCIENTIFIC idea that the apparent location of Mars, and its ACTUAL location, are DIFFERENT. This is in direct variance to what Lessans said.

If Lessans was right, EVERY ONE OF OUR ROCKETS WOULD MISS MARS.

Instead, EVERY ONE OF OUR ROCKETS HITS MARS.

How do you explain that, peacegirl? It is a direct refutation of Lessans!

Shall we take this to the astronomy forum for you?

Do we see this difference in real time? In other words, do we see Mars through a telescope, and at the same time are we failing to see any rockets land there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The Rovers were landed in specific areas that had been selected prior to launch

That's good to know. At least this one variable won't be responsible for giving us a false reading.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The Rovers were landed in specific areas that had been selected prior to launch

And note that Mars' mean orbital velocity is 24.13 kilometers per second. That means it travels more than 11,580 kilometers in 8 minutes' time -- nearly twice the planet's diameter.

In other words, if the probe had been launched without taking the delay due to the speed of light into account, not only would it have missed the landing site, it would have missed the planet entirely.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, those are the terms and definitions that NASA actually uses in its programs. They apparently work since we have landed on Mars and have orbited other planets with probes.

They seem to be correct inferences.

If it turns out Lessans was right, then somehow NASA got extremely lucky multiple times since they were using completely wrong calculations.

That is not true LadyShea. I am not arguing with scientists. I'm only arguing as to what it is we are seeing, and I'm not satisfied with the explanation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And note that Mars' mean orbital velocity is 24.13 kilometers per second. That means it travels more than 11,580 kilometers in 8 minutes' time -- nearly twice the planet's diameter.

In other words, if the probe had been launched without taking the delay due to the speed of light into account, not only would it have missed the landing site, it would have missed the planet entirely.

Something doesn't feel right. If we're using the speed of light to determine the location of the planet, and we've also determined the speed of light from the moons of Jupiter experiment, could it be that the calculation as to how fast light is traveling could be slightly off? Please don't get bent out of shape. This is supposed to be a free thought forum.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, it uses the speed of light to calculate, but how do they know that what they are seeing is not the actual location? Do they see two images, the actual and the apparent?

They calculate the actual position from the apparent position using the speed of light. They accept delayed seeing as fact, so it is automatically part of any and all calculations, and those calculations brought about the exactly predicted results.

If they didn't accept the standard model of vision and light physics, they wouldn't calculate anything because the actual position and apparent position would be the same under real time seeing.

If they were wrong about the time delay, they would not have gotten the predicted results, because their calculations would be wrong.

As far as I know, you are the only person positing real time seeing. Why would NASA even consider that possible model in it's projects? If real time seeing were true though, and therefore their projects failed because they were using delayed time seeing as a factor, that would be evidence in your favor. They have not failed. That is evidence against real time seeing.


Are you really this dense?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true LadyShea. I am not arguing with scientists. I'm only arguing as to what it is we are seeing, and I'm not satisfied with the explanation.

What's not true? It's not true that NASA has successfully launched and landed spacecraft at their intended targets? It's not true that NASA, and all of science, believe in the standard model of sight and therefore include a light travel time delay in all their calculations automatically? It's not true that if that belief in light travel time delay was wrong their calculations that include the delay factor would always be wrong?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, it uses the speed of light to calculate, but how do they know that what they are seeing is not the actual location? Do they see two images, the actual and the apparent?

Come on, peacegirl. Think. What do scientists believe about the world? That their images are delayed, right? You're the only person in the whole wide world that believes otherwise. So why do you think scientists wouldn't believe that what they are seeing is delayed too, so only an apparent location?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true LadyShea. I am not arguing with scientists. I'm only arguing as to what it is we are seeing, and I'm not satisfied with the explanation.

You've been arguing with professional scientists from the very beginning.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I suggest just posting it. What could she object to? If she objects to it, rephrase it in the thread.

What difference will it make? They will all tell her the same stuff we tell her, and she will reject it. That it can't rationally be rejected makes no difference. She will go through her usual stages, in some varying order:

1. This is just science setting out to prove what it already supposes.

2. This is because you are presupposing the afferent model and not the efferent model.

3. You are all big meanies, going on Ignore! You are on probation now!

4. It's a coincidence!

5. I believe Lessans was spot on in his astute observations.

6. More empirical testing needs to be done!


In the past, confronted with this issue (EVERY issue has come up numerous times!) she has simply asserted that the way we calculate sending spacecraft to distant worlds is disconnected from real-time seeing. Of course this is nonsense, the whole point is they HAVE to be connected! And at some level she knows this -- for who could fail to grasp the obvious connection? -- but denial kicks in. She CANNOT have it be the case that Lessans was wrong. It's pitiful.

What about you David? If you think I'm in denial, you're in double denial. You say you believe in science which modifies its ideas according to new information, but you speak a different tune when it comes to protecting your sacred belief that the future or past can exist in a space/time continuum (which is science fiction territory). Real time seeing rules this out since the past and future do not exist except as a memory in your brain.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Ten: Our Posterity pp. 489-490

Now to solve this apparently unsolvable problem, it is first
necessary to establish certain undeniable facts. Therefore, let me
begin by asking you if there is such a reality as the past? Does this
word symbolize something that is a part of the real world?

“Of course…yesterday is the past, today is the present, and
tomorrow is the future. And this is a mathematical relation.”

It is true that yesterday was Thursday, and the day before was
Wednesday, and there isn’t any person alive who will disagree. But
this does not prove whether the word past is an accurate symbol. Can
you take it, like you can the words apple and pear, and hang it up on
something so I can look through it at the real McCoy? When does
the present become the past? I actually want you to demonstrate how
the present slips into the past. That cannot be done, by God Himself.

The reason man cannot do what I asked is because there is no such
thing as the past. The past is simply the perception of a relation
between two points. As I move from here to there, the past is what I
leave behind while in motion; it is my ability to remember something
that happened. In actual reality you are not moving between two
points, a beginning and an end, you are in motion in the present.
I know that we were talking yesterday, and that I was talking a fraction
of a second ago, and that I am still talking. The word 'past' is
obviously the perception of a relation that appears undeniable because
it has reference to the revolution of the earth on its axis in relation to
the sun. You are conscious that it takes a certain length of time to do
something, and because you are also conscious of space you perceive
that as you traverse a point from here to there, what is left behind as
you travel is called the past and your destination is the future.

Here
lies a great fallacy that was never completely understood, for how is it
humanly possible for there to be such a thing as the past and future
when in reality all we ever have is the present? Yet we have a word to
describe something that has no existence in the real world. Socrates
didn’t live in the past — he lived in the present, although our
recollection of him (which is in the present) allows us to think back to
this time period. The reason we say that Socrates lived in the past is
because this particular individual is no longer here. But is it possible
for you to say that God or the sun existed in the past? Does anyone
ever sleep in the past; does the sun ever shine in the past; is it possible
for you to do anything in the past? If you were sitting up on a high
cloud these last ten thousand years, never asleep, as is the sun, you
would have watched Socrates in the present, just as you are watching
me write this book in the present. In order for me to prove what
seems impossible, it is absolutely necessary that I de-confuse the mind
of man so we can communicate.

As we have learned in Chapter Four, our brain is divided into
compartments, and in the memory section are innumerable word
slides on which are recorded our experiences. A second ago, yesterday,
last week, last month, two years ago, two thousand years ago, are
slides in our brain projector through which we see the number of
times, or what portion of one time, the earth revolves on its axis; but
if we were not able to remember (store away these slides), the word
past would never have come into existence because we are born, grow
old, and die all in the present. In reality, everything that we can
possibly do from the time we get up to the time we go to bed, and even
our sleep, is done in the present, as is the shining of the sun.

“Are you saying that if man wasn’t able to remember what he did,
there would be no such thing as the past?”

If I said to you, “What did you do yesterday?” and you were
unable to understand my words, only the present would exist for you.
The recollection of the various things you did in your life or, to put
it another way, the recollection of your past is a word relation
that is part of your memory, but to think that anybody ever lived in
the past is inaccurate. Animals cannot think in terms of past and future
because they don’t have the ability to store away these word slides.
We use words like beginning and end, apply this to the universe and
think we perceive mathematical relations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You've been arguing with professional scientists from the very beginning.

But I'm not arguing over the fact that scientists have made correct calculations. I'm just trying to understand what those calculations are to see if there could be another explanation.

[naturalist.atheist]

it looks like peacegirl is slipping into one of her less coherent periods.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I'm not arguing over the fact that scientists have made correct calculations. I'm just trying to understand what those calculations are to see if there could be another explanation.

What could those calculations be? What are the possible variables, peacegirl?

Let's use an Earth example, and you tell me all the possible ways we could calculate the answer and what factors would need to be known or suspected?

A car has been traveling East on I-10 for 2 hours at 50 miles an hour. Where is the car actually located?

[thedoc]

I did a little math and aproximated how long it would take several of the planets to travel one of it's own diameters along it's orbit,

Mercury - 1.7 min.
Venus - 5.75 min.
Mars - 4.7 min.
Jupiter - 183 min.
Saturn - 207 min.

Based on an average speed I found on-line and the diameters Peacegirl posted. Anyone have more accurate figures? One thing to note I believe it takes light aprox. 50 min to get here from Jupiter.

If your goal is only to 'Hit' the planet, time might not matter much, but landing at a particular spot or putting something in orbit requires much better accuracy.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we're using the speed of light to determine the location of the planet, and we've also determined the speed of light from the moons of Jupiter experiment, could it be that the calculation as to how fast light is traveling could be slightly off?

The Moons of Jupiter were one of the early indicaters that light traveled at a finite speed, and allowed observers to estimate that speed. Since then there have been other tests that have confirmed the original estimate and have made that figure much more accurate. The Moons of Jupiter are not the only means we have to check the speed of light, if that were so it would be useing the observation to prove itself, and science doesn't work that way.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The Moons of Jupiter were one of the early indicaters that light traveled at a finite speed, and allowed observers to estimate that speed. Since then there have been other tests that have confirmed the original estimate and have made that figure much more accurate. The Moons of Jupiter are not the only means we have to check the speed of light, if that were so it would be useing the observation to prove itself, and science doesn't work that way.

Speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Science bases its calculations on the speed of light, not in delayed time. Mars has a large diameter so it might not matter if we include this differential of light in the calculation.

Roll on the floor, laugh my ass off!

How much self-deception are you really capable of, peacegirl?

Yes, OF COURSE science bases its calculations on delayed time, because the finitude of light speed just MEANS delayed time! When we launch our rockets at Mars, the Mars we see in the sky is as Mars USED TO BE, not REAL TIME.

And the diameter stuff -- oh, holy shit! No, peacegirl, Mars's diameter is NO WHERE NEAR BIG ENOUGH so that we would hit it regardless of whether we used real-time trajectory or delayed-time trajectory. Hitting Mars is like hitting a bull's eye on a dart board tens of millions of miles in diameter! Absolute precision is absolutely necessary.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, it uses the speed of light to calculate, but how do they know that what they are seeing is not the actual location? Do they see two images, the actual and the apparent?

What ... The ... Fuck?

Honestly, I don't think peacegirl even understands this discussion.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What about you David? If you think I'm in denial, you're in double denial. You say you believe in science which modifies its ideas according to new information, but you speak a different tune when it comes to protecting your sacred belief that the future or past can exist in a space/time continuum (which is science fiction territory). Real time seeing rules this out since the past and future do not exist except as a memory in your brain.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Ten: Our Posterity pp. 489-490

Now to solve this apparently unsolvable problem, it is first
necessary to establish certain undeniable facts. Therefore, let me
begin by asking you if there is such a reality as the past? Does this
word symbolize something that is a part of the real world?

“Of course…yesterday is the past, today is the present, and
tomorrow is the future. And this is a mathematical relation.”

It is true that yesterday was Thursday, and the day before was
Wednesday, and there isn’t any person alive who will disagree. But
this does not prove whether the word past is an accurate symbol. Can
you take it, like you can the words apple and pear, and hang it up on
something so I can look through it at the real McCoy? When does
the present become the past? I actually want you to demonstrate how
the present slips into the past. That cannot be done, by God Himself.

The reason man cannot do what I asked is because there is no such
thing as the past. The past is simply the perception of a relation
between two points. As I move from here to there, the past is what I
leave behind while in motion; it is my ability to remember something
that happened. In actual reality you are not moving between two
points, a beginning and an end, you are in motion in the present.
I know that we were talking yesterday, and that I was talking a fraction
of a second ago, and that I am still talking. The word 'past' is
obviously the perception of a relation that appears undeniable because
it has reference to the revolution of the earth on its axis in relation to
the sun. You are conscious that it takes a certain length of time to do
something, and because you are also conscious of space you perceive
that as you traverse a point from here to there, what is left behind as
you travel is called the past and your destination is the future.

Here
lies a great fallacy that was never completely understood, for how is it
humanly possible for there to be such a thing as the past and future
when in reality all we ever have is the present? Yet we have a word to
describe something that has no existence in the real world. Socrates
didn’t live in the past — he lived in the present, although our
recollection of him (which is in the present) allows us to think back to
this time period. The reason we say that Socrates lived in the past is
because this particular individual is no longer here. But is it possible
for you to say that God or the sun existed in the past? Does anyone
ever sleep in the past; does the sun ever shine in the past; is it possible
for you to do anything in the past? If you were sitting up on a high
cloud these last ten thousand years, never asleep, as is the sun, you
would have watched Socrates in the present, just as you are watching
me write this book in the present. In order for me to prove what
seems impossible, it is absolutely necessary that I de-confuse the mind
of man so we can communicate.

As we have learned in Chapter Four, our brain is divided into
compartments, and in the memory section are innumerable word
slides on which are recorded our experiences. A second ago, yesterday,
last week, last month, two years ago, two thousand years ago, are
slides in our brain projector through which we see the number of
times, or what portion of one time, the earth revolves on its axis; but
if we were not able to remember (store away these slides), the word
past would never have come into existence because we are born, grow
old, and die all in the present. In reality, everything that we can
possibly do from the time we get up to the time we go to bed, and even
our sleep, is done in the present, as is the shining of the sun.

“Are you saying that if man wasn’t able to remember what he did,
there would be no such thing as the past?”

If I said to you, “What did you do yesterday?” and you were
unable to understand my words, only the present would exist for you.
The recollection of the various things you did in your life or, to put
it another way, the recollection of your past is a word relation
that is part of your memory, but to think that anybody ever lived in
the past is inaccurate. Animals cannot think in terms of past and future
because they don’t have the ability to store away these word slides.
We use words like beginning and end, apply this to the universe and
think we perceive mathematical relations.

Look at her squirm, changing the subject!

What you are referring to is my discussion of two philosophical notions of time, eternalism v. presentism. And, as usual, you have badly mangled and misrepresented what I said. Don't try to scuttle off topic, peacegirl. You have just learned from The Lone Ranger that your notion that Mars's diameter is big enough so that it won't matter whether we shoot rockets at it according to delayed time or real time is WRONG! Now what?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I registered last night, but have not received my email to complete the process and I cannot post on the forums.

Looking for a NASA address to email.

That is odd, usually the email comes right away. Maybe you should contact the admin or whatever help they might offer.

As it happens I am registered there, so I could post the question if you can't get in. But I haven't actually logged in there for so long I'm not sure I recall my password.