A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

This is from Beyond the Framework which was written after the book Chuck is quoting from. I think he clarified it much better in this version which was written in 1976, 6 years after the book he is using to take a screen shot.

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second, and taking for granted that 5 senses was equally scientific, made the statement which still exists in our encyclopedias, that “If we could sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the earth, we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching America for the very first time.” But once again they confused certain things, and all their reasoning, except for light traveling at a high rate of speed, was completely erroneous. They made the assumption that since the eyes are a sense organ it is obvious that light must reflect an electric image of everything it touches, which then travels through space and is received by the brain through the eyes. What they are trying to make us believe is that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us, it would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why the telescope? Let me show you how confused this particular group of scientists really are.

They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other respects, which is false, although it is true that the farther away we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as light becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. But the sound from a plane, even though we can’t see it on a clear day, will tell us it is in the sky, but why can’t we see it if an image is being reflected towards the eyes on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image is not being reflected. We can’t see the plane because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can’t see bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope. The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is enough light present and it is large enough to be seen. The reason the sun looks to be the size of the moon, although much larger, is because it would look like a star to someone living on a planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time because the images are not traveling towards the optic nerve on the waves of light, therefore, it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant stars. In fact, if someone on Rigel had a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very moment, he would see me at the exact time that you would, sitting right next to me, which brings us to another very interesting point.

If I couldn’t see you standing right next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had not yet been turned on, but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12 noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly, at that very moment, although we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a large star the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that their light diminishes before it gets to us. We don’t need light around us to see the stars, nor would we need light around us to see the sun turned on at 12 noon. To sum this up – just as we have often observed that a drum corps is marching out of step to the beat when seen from a distance, because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been taken, so likewise if we could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope, and hear his voice on radio, we would see his lips move instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later, because the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is an electric image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this distance. But let me prove in still another way that the eyes are not a sense organ.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To sum this up – just as we have often observed that a drum corps is marching out of step to the beat when seen from a distance, because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been taken, so likewise if we could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope, and hear his voice on radio, we would see his lips move instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later, because the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is an electric image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this distance.

I just love this last little bit — the rest has been commented on extensively, so I leave it to others to shake their heads in wonderment at it. Peacegirl — and Lessans, too, at least allegedly so in the Corrupted Text — seems to think that radio and light are different, that sound travels at 186,000 miles per second, and that sound propagates through empty space. Hint to peacegirl: the word “radio” is a neologism, an invented contraction of the words “radiating LIGHT.”

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one here has asked any relevant questions. No one. Do you get that?

You are incorrect. I certainly did. You didn't answer. You did however require me to read three chapters of something that isn't formatted well ...

Originally Posted by davidm

I just love this last little bit — the rest has been commented on extensively, so I leave it to others to shake their heads in wonderment at it.

OK now I am sure I have saved myself a massive amount of time on this

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can hear the author read and elaborate on the first chapter.

Also all of the other chapters - for free! If you know where to look on peacegirl's website.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Also all of the other chapters - for free! If you know where to look on peacegirl's website.

You would love to rip me off if you could. I don't care if people find it for free, but I did spend almost $3000 to get his tapes on an mp3. I will call my hosting company to make sure this page is secured, no thanks to you. I wouldn't it expect it coming from you. You don't have it in you.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care if people find it for free

Hm. Are you sure? Last time you said you didn't care and then had a fucking meltdown when I posted links to your website. Is it ok to link to your website now?

but I did spend almost $3000 to get his tapes on an mp3

Holy shit that is hilarious.

[Stephen Maturin]

Slightly less hilarious when one considers the source of that $3K.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I just love this last little bit — the rest has been commented on extensively, so I leave it to others to shake their heads in wonderment at it. Peacegirl — and Lessans, too, at least allegedly so in the Corrupted Text — seems to think that radio and light are different, that sound travels at 186,000 miles per second, and that sound propagates through empty space. Hint to peacegirl: the word “radio” is a neologism, an invented contraction of the words “radiating LIGHT.”

What are you gibbering about now? Light waves are different from sound waves. He didn't compare radio waves with light waves. Stop grasping at straws David. You won't win because he's right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Hm. Are you sure? Last time you said you didn't care and then had a fucking meltdown when I posted links to your website. Is it ok to link to your website now?

Holy shit that is hilarious.

You want people to cheat me, I get it. I can't stop you Chuck, but I will contact my hosting company because I know there's a way to protect myself. If people get in without a password, so be it.

[ChuckF]

Let's all spare a thought for that hosting company call center.

But I doubt you'll do anything, insofar as the situation from like 6 years ago still persists. Oh well. I offered to help for only $41 - the price of your Corrupted Text back then - but for some reason that was too expensive.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you gibbering about now? Light waves are different from sound waves. He didn't compare radio waves with light waves. Stop grasping at straws David. You won't win because he's right.

“The sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles per second.” No, peacegirl, it is not. Nor can sound travel in a vacuum.

Peacegirl, why would we see the lips of the speaker on the moon moving in real time, but hear his voice in delayed time? Bear in mind that we, The Seymourians, have already unraveled the symbolic and metaphorical meanings of suchlike lucubrations, which remain utterly opaque to you.

[256 colors]

Peacegirl 2019 "Scientific Discovery" and the definitions she denies as of February 6 2024 - Album on Imgur

Screenshot of internet forums user "peacegirl" on January 30 2019: "introducing a scientific discovery" without ever doing so, at all, on any forum on the entire internet, despite many years of typing. (found on forum Philosophy Now, thread Revolution in Thought, page 9 of 46-page thread - Revolution in Thought - Page 9 - Philosophy Now Forum (Screengrab February 6 2024)

If only peacegirl had gone here: A blueprint for scientific investigations - Understanding Science (a PDF is available at the site). Here, peacegirl, this is the part that it seems you have been missing all of these years.

Home → Understanding Science 101 → How science works → A blueprint for scientific investigations

A scaffold for scientific investigations

The process of science involves many layers of complexity, but the key points of that process are straightforward:

There are many routes into the process, including serendipity (e.g., being hit on the head by the proverbial apple), concern over a practical problem (e.g., finding a new treatment for diabetes), and a technological development (e.g., the launch of a more advanced telescope). Scientists often begin an investigation by plain old poking around: tinkering, brainstorming, trying to make some new observations, chatting with colleagues about an idea, or doing some reading.

(Illustration showing how exploration and discovery in science comes about.)

Scientific testing is at the heart of the process. In science, all ideas are tested with evidence from the natural world, which may take many different forms —Antarctic ice cores, particle accelerator experiments, or detailed descriptions of sedimentary rock layers. You can’t move through the process of science without examining how that evidence reflects on your ideas about how the world works — even if that means giving up a favorite hypothesis.

Source Copyright © 2024 · UC Museum of Paleontology Understanding Science

ATTN: peacegirl

Typing is merely typing, we both do it. Posts on internet forums, messageboards, social media, and other places online are not worth the paper they are printed on. The NFT "craze" is over.

It is clear, peacegirl, that you type and type and type, for years and years and years, but despite your years of typing and entering your typed words on the internet, you have nothing to show for it but screenshots of yourself and others playing Pharisees and Sadducees with all of your typing about a "discovery" that has never been revealed, to anyone, ever, at all.

The man you credit with having made a "scientific discovery" refused to reveal what he thought he had discovered. Seymour Lessans died in 1991 having never once applied the scientific method in order to test his very secret, unnamed idea.

I'm here to help, or, something.

Lacking time to read all of the words that you have been typing for all of these years, without getting the results you seem to desire or state, peacegirl, I looked up your book. I looked for information about The Sacred Text of this thread; the one that you are arguing over, instead of acting upon.

I found information that you may have forgotten over all of these years of typing about an alleged, but unnamed "scientific discovery" made by Seymour Lessans in 1959.

Source: Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times - Seymour Lessans - Google Books

Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times

Seymour Lessans - Trafford Publishing, 2009 - Philosophy - 460 pages

This book contains a scientific discovery based on a natural psychological law which was hidden so carefully behind layers of dogma in the guise of truth that it wasn't found until now. This knowledge allows mankind, for the very first time, to veer in a different direction, creating the conditions that prevent hurt and retaliation in human relations.

The scientific discovery was made in 1959 by a self-learned man who after many years of intense study observed a universal principle never perceived before. Stumbling upon such an important finding, it was difficult for him to comprehend the magnitude of what he had uncovered. It took him many more years to transcribe his revelation into book format so it could be understood by others. When it came time to get his work published he was turned down because he was not a member of a leading university, and held no distinguishing titles. Sadly, he died in obscurity in1991, [sic] at the age of 72.

Words have meaning, peacegirl. One who has a "scientific discovery" has a plainly defined framework in which to tell other people about it and confirm it.

Seymour Lessans seems to have not done any science, peacegirl, and, the same seems true of you. Maybe this is why his 1959 idea and your endless years' worth of typing appear in philosophy forums online, and not in any kind of science literature of any kind anywhere in the entire world.

Lessans' alleged "discovery" was said to be "based on a natural psychological law." Yet none exists. Perhaps this was his first mistake? Or one of several mistakes?

The book description continues: "When it came time to get his work published he was turned down because he was not a member of a leading university, and held no distinguishing titles."

This is not how publishing works, nor is it how universities work. Self-publishing has been an option for at least a few centuries. "Titles" mean nothing in relation to either publishing or academia [Note: nuh-uh, academia has its own separate nonsense].

No wonder poor Lessans died "in1991 [sic]" without validation, and his followers (or, follower?) express frustration. It's okay, you don't need to feel sad about it. You just have to stop being sad over a false narrative, that's all.

This discovery has far-reaching implications for today's world because it prevents the conditions that lead to hurt and retaliation in human relations.

Then, what IS "the discovery"? Why did Lessans refuse to say in 1959? Why have you spent so many years typing so many words, peacegirl, to insist that a "discovery" has been made, and exists, yet, you have never once ever just come out and said what this alleged discovery is, or may be.

Could the reason why you have never named or identified the so-called discovery made by Seymour Lessans be due the absence of existence of any discovery of any kind? Perhaps, peacegirl, you may ponder this question.

The author made a prediction that the Golden Age would become a reality in the 20th century.

The 20th Century has ended, peacegirl. It is the year 2024, and this has not come to pass. We are in the 21st Century, and, you have been typing this entire time. Where is this Golden Age? How would we know?

You already said that Lessans did not refer to the Golden Age authored by sci-fi failure but IRS Code 501(c)(3) expert, L Ron Hubbard, in the books he wrote to invent Scientology, so that he could hoard wealth, and do other things that are unrelated to science or the scientific method, and unrelated all of this typing.

It wasn't the song by Beck, either, which "premiered on stage on June 16, 2000, at the tiny Largo Club in Hollywood, CA."

Back to your book, peacegirl.

God has given mankind the basic blueprint. It is now up to us to apply it...before it is too late.

Ohhhh, okay! Finally! No wonder you've wasted decades typing on forums about philosophy, asserting an allegedly scientific claim without evidence! This is THEOLOGY, peacegirl!

Hey, it's okay! Divine Inspiration has motivated many humans to use the scientific method to determine the veracity of their beliefs. Of course it has! How can it not, given the prevalence of beliefs in the supernatural, and the history of religions, since before the existence of writing? Not to mention printing or typing. Oh gosh, no wonder you've never gotten any traction for your posts, peacegirl! You're in the wrong forums.

Theological doctrines and beliefs are not facts or discoveries. They're just beliefs. The awesome thing about beliefs is that anyone can invent them, and it's okay, because, that is how beliefs work.

"Decline and Fall of All Evil" was edited and compiled by Janis Rafael.

Oh. She spelled it the Joplin way, not the Nice way. Hmpf.

And her last name? Hm. Too many letters, like all of our forum postings.

Let's edit... REAL AF ? - nahhhh... RAEL AF? aw, hell naw. That would be unreal.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by -FX-

You are incorrect. I certainly did. You didn't answer. You did however require me to read three chapters of something that isn't formatted well ...

OK now I am sure I have saved myself a massive amount of time on this

If I didn't answer your question (which I don't recall), it was probably because it had a tone of insincerity. Refresh my memory so I can address your concern.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

“The sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles per second.” No, peacegirl, it is not. Nor can sound travel in a vacuum.

Peacegirl, why would we see the lips of the speaker on the moon moving in real time, but hear his voice in delayed time? Bear in mind that we, The Seymourians, have already unraveled the symbolic and metaphorical meanings of suchlike lucubrations, which remain utterly opaque to you.

Who said the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles per second? You're out in left field.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Let's all spare a thought for that hosting company call center.

But I doubt you'll do anything, insofar as the situation from like 6 years ago still persists. Oh well. I offered to help for only $41 - the price of your Corrupted Text back then - but for some reason that was too expensive.

If you were the last option on earth, I would not consult you for anything, let alone pay you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 256 colors

Peacegirl 2019 "Scientific Discovery" and the definitions she denies as of February 6 2024 - Album on Imgur

Screenshot of internet forums user "peacegirl" on January 30 2019: "introducing a scientific discovery" without ever doing so, at all, on any forum on the entire internet, despite many years of typing. (found on forum Philosophy Now, thread Revolution in Thought, page 9 of 46-page thread - Revolution in Thought - Page 9 - Philosophy Now Forum (Screengrab February 6 2024)

If only peacegirl had gone here: A blueprint for scientific investigations - Understanding Science (a PDF is available at the site). Here, peacegirl, this is the part that it seems you have been missing all of these years.

Source Copyright © 2024 · UC Museum of Paleontology Understanding Science

ATTN: peacegirl

Typing is merely typing, we both do it. Posts on internet forums, messageboards, social media, and other places online are not worth the paper they are printed on. The NFT "craze" is over.

It is clear, peacegirl, that you type and type and type, for years and years and years, but despite your years of typing and entering your typed words on the internet, you have nothing to show for it but screenshots of yourself and others playing Pharisees and Sadducees with all of your typing about a "discovery" that has never been revealed, to anyone, ever, at all.

The man you credit with having made a "scientific discovery" refused to reveal what he thought he had discovered. Seymour Lessans died in 1991 having never once applied the scientific method in order to test his very secret, unnamed idea.

I'm here to help, or, something.

Lacking time to read all of the words that you have been typing for all of these years, without getting the results you seem to desire or state, peacegirl, I looked up your book. I looked for information about The Sacred Text of this thread; the one that you are arguing over, instead of acting upon.

I found information that you may have forgotten over all of these years of typing about an alleged, but unnamed "scientific discovery" made by Seymour Lessans in 1959.

Source: Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times - Seymour Lessans - Google Books

Words have meaning, peacegirl. One who has a "scientific discovery" has a plainly defined framework in which to tell other people about it and confirm it.

Seymour Lessans seems to have not done any science, peacegirl, and, the same seems true of you. Maybe this is why his 1959 idea and your endless years' worth of typing appear in philosophy forums online, and not in any kind of science literature of any kind anywhere in the entire world.

Lessans' alleged "discovery" was said to be "based on a natural psychological law." Yet none exists. Perhaps this was his first mistake? Or one of several mistakes?

The book description continues: "When it came time to get his work published he was turned down because he was not a member of a leading university, and held no distinguishing titles."

This is not how publishing works, nor is it how universities work. Self-publishing has been an option for at least a few centuries. "Titles" mean nothing in relation to either publishing or academia [Note: nuh-uh, academia has its own separate nonsense].

No wonder poor Lessans died "in1991 [sic]" without validation, and his followers (or, follower?) express frustration. It's okay, you don't need to feel sad about it. You just have to stop being sad over a false narrative, that's all.

Then, what IS "the discovery"? Why did Lessans refuse to say in 1959? Why have you spent so many years typing so many words, peacegirl, to insist that a "discovery" has been made, and exists, yet, you have never once ever just come out and said what this alleged discovery is, or may be.

Could the reason why you have never named or identified the so-called discovery made by Seymour Lessans be due the absence of existence of any discovery of any kind? Perhaps, peacegirl, you may ponder this question.

The 20th Century has ended, peacegirl. It is the year 2024, and this has not come to pass. We are in the 21st Century, and, you have been typing this entire time. Where is this Golden Age? How would we know?

You already said that Lessans did not refer to the Golden Age authored by sci-fi failure but IRS Code 501(c)(3) expert, L Ron Hubbard, in the books he wrote to invent Scientology, so that he could hoard wealth, and do other things that are unrelated to science or the scientific method, and unrelated all of this typing.

It wasn't the song by Beck, either, which "premiered on stage on June 16, 2000, at the tiny Largo Club in Hollywood, CA."

Back to your book, peacegirl.

Ohhhh, okay! Finally! No wonder you've wasted decades typing on forums about philosophy, asserting an allegedly scientific claim without evidence! This is THEOLOGY, peacegirl!

Hey, it's okay! Divine Inspiration has motivated many humans to use the scientific method to determine the veracity of their beliefs. Of course it has! How can it not, given the prevalence of beliefs in the supernatural, and the history of religions, since before the existence of writing? Not to mention printing or typing. Oh gosh, no wonder you've never gotten any traction for your posts, peacegirl! You're in the wrong forums.

Theological doctrines and beliefs are not facts or discoveries. They're just beliefs. The awesome thing about beliefs is that anyone can invent them, and it's okay, because, that is how beliefs work.

Oh. She spelled it the Joplin way, not the Nice way. Hmpf.

And her last name? Hm. Too many letters, like all of our forum postings.

Let's edit... REAL AF ? - nahhhh... RAEL AF? aw, hell naw. That would be unreal.

I don't know who you are, but you're completely off base. THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY. Look up epistemology. He spelled out his discovery which I gave everyone. Did you read it by chance. No, you did not. Why don't you read what he wrote first, before looking me up and finding flaws in how I tried to bring his knowledge to light. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I’m sure you studied his work with a fine tooth comb become your better than thou assessment. You are obviously jumping to a conclusion that because I used message boards in this effort, it must be wrong. That's completely false. This man was an autodidact. He was not part of academia and could not get his foot in the door to get an audience of the people who had a name next to them. This is exactly what Richard Milton wrote, which I included in my compilation. Believe what you want, but this knowledge is more than a belief or a theory. And what bothers you that I spell my name with an s rather ice? Huh? What does this have to do with anything? Smh.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who said the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles per second?

… because the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles a second.

It’ right there in the bit you quoted.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

It’ right there in the bit you quoted.

You are right. He made a mistake by using light as the measurement for sound. It doesn't change the point he was making though, nor does it make his claim that the eyes are not a sense organ incorrect. Keep your eye on the ball, which is all I ask for and don't let an error deter you. Whether sound travels at 186,000 miles a second or 355 m/second, doesn't change the concept at all. If he is right, our gaze is instant while sound takes time. That's the point he was making. it's trivial unless you want to use this error to condemn his proposition because you don't want him to be right. But thanks for bringing this to my attention.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are right. He made a mistake by using light as the measurement for sound. It doesn't change the point he was making though, nor does it make his claim that the eyes are not a sense organ incorrect. Keep your eye on the ball, which is all I ask for and don't let an error deter you. Whether sound travels at 186,000 miles a second or 355 m/second, doesn't change the concept at all. If he is right, our gaze is instant while sound takes time. That's the point he was making. it's trivial unless you want to use this error to condemn his proposition because you don't want him to be right. But thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Sound didn't travel from the moon through airless space. They talked to the Earth via radios, which uses electromagnetic radiation, or light.

You and/or Lessans are saying you'd see the astronauts lips move on the moon and hear it on the radio 3 seconds later. That is consistent with the incorrect notion that we see things instantly.

So you don't have to change that passage unless you want to remove it because "the eyes are not a sense organ" is literally the dumbest thing in that book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Sound didn't travel from the moon through airless space. They talked to the Earth via radios, which uses electromagnetic radiation, or light.

You and/or Lessans are saying you'd see the astronauts lips move on the moon and hear it on the radio 3 seconds later. That is consistent with the incorrect notion that we see things instantly.

So you don't have to change that passage unless you want to remove it because "the eyes are not a sense organ" is literally the dumbest thing in that book.

No it isn't. You're only trying to confirm that he was wrong without understanding why he made the claim. That's the only way to figure out whether he was right. According to their explanation, there is a delay in converting speech to radio waves which causes a 2 second delay. But are they correct?

When astronauts stood on the Moon during the Apollo missions, they encountered a fascinating phenomenon: they could see things instantly, but there was a delay in hearing sounds. Let’s break down why this happened:

Visual Perception:
When an astronaut looked at the lunar surface or another astronaut, light traveled from the object to their eyes at the speed of light (approximately 299,792 kilometers per second).
Since the Moon has no atmosphere to scatter or slow down light, visual information reached their eyes instantly.
So, when an astronaut waved their hand or moved, their fellow astronauts could see it immediately.
Lack of Atmosphere:
The Moon lacks an atmosphere, which means there is no medium for sound waves to travel through.
On Earth, sound waves propagate through air, water, or other materials. But on the Moon, there’s nothing to carry sound.
Without air molecules to vibrate and transmit sound, any spoken words or noises made by astronauts remained silent.
Communication via Radio Waves:
Astronauts communicated using radio waves.
They wore helmets with built-in microphones and speakers.
When an astronaut spoke, their voice was converted into radio waves and transmitted to other astronauts or mission control on Earth.
These radio waves traveled at the speed of light, just like visual information.
However, the processing time for converting speech to radio waves and transmitting them introduced a slight delay.
As a result, there was a 2-second lag between an astronaut speaking and their colleagues hearing it.
In summary, the absence of an atmosphere on the Moon prevented sound waves from traveling, while radio waves allowed astronauts to communicate despite the delay. It’s a fascinating interplay between physics and technology!

I wonder what would happen on a mission to Mars. Would the conversion of sound to radio signals (accounting for the time lag and adjusted) cause ground control to see the astronauts 0.13 seconds later, or would they see the astronauts instantly (with a powerful telescope here on Earth) but hear their speech with a noticeable delay of 0.13 seconds? How would they reconcile this when the conversion to speech only took two seconds, not 0.13?

Given the speed of light, let’s calculate how long it would take to see an astronaut on Mars from Earth.

Distance to Mars: The average distance between Earth and Mars varies due to their elliptical orbits. On average, it’s approximately 225 million kilometers (140 million miles) when they are closest to each other.
Speed of Light: The speed of light in a vacuum is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second (186,282 miles per second).
Time Calculation: Using the formula Time = Distance / Speed, we can find the time it takes for light to travel from Mars to Earth: [ \text{Time} = \frac{\text{Distance}}{\text{Speed of Light}} ] [ \text{Time} = \frac{225 \times 10^6 , \text{km}}{300,000 , \text{km/s}} ] Calculating this: [ \text{Time} = 750 , \text{s} ] Therefore, it would take approximately 0.13 seconds to see an astronaut on Mars from Earth, assuming the speed of light as the only factor1.
Keep in mind that this calculation doesn’t account for other factors like signal transmission delays or the time it takes for the astronaut’s image to reach our eyes. In reality, it would be slightly longer due to these additional factors.

https://astrorover.com/can-you-see-m...ferent%20times.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it isn't. You're only trying to confirm that he was wrong without understanding why he made the claim. That's the only way to figure out whether he was right. According to their explanation, there is a delay in converting speech to radio waves which causes a 2 second delay. But are they correct?

When astronauts stood on the Moon during the Apollo missions, they encountered a fascinating phenomenon: they could see things instantly, but there was a delay in hearing sounds. Let’s break down why this happened:

Visual Perception:
When an astronaut looked at the lunar surface or another astronaut, light traveled from the object to their eyes at the speed of light (approximately 299,792 kilometers per second).
Since the Moon has no atmosphere to scatter or slow down light, visual information reached their eyes instantly.
So, when an astronaut waved their hand or moved, their fellow astronauts could see it immediately.
Lack of Atmosphere:
The Moon lacks an atmosphere, which means there is no medium for sound waves to travel through.
On Earth, sound waves propagate through air, water, or other materials. But on the Moon, there’s nothing to carry sound.
Without air molecules to vibrate and transmit sound, any spoken words or noises made by astronauts remained silent.
Communication via Radio Waves:
Astronauts communicated using radio waves.
They wore helmets with built-in microphones and speakers.
When an astronaut spoke, their voice was converted into radio waves and transmitted to other astronauts or mission control on Earth.
These radio waves traveled at the speed of light, just like visual information.
However, the processing time for converting speech to radio waves and transmitting them introduced a slight delay.
As a result, there was a 2-second lag between an astronaut speaking and their colleagues hearing it.
In summary, the absence of an atmosphere on the Moon prevented sound waves from traveling, while radio waves allowed astronauts to communicate despite the delay. It’s a fascinating interplay between physics and technology!

I wonder what would happen on a mission to Mars. Would the conversion of sound to radio signals (accounting for the time lag and adjusted) cause ground control to see the astronauts 0.13 seconds later, or would they see the astronauts instantly (with a powerful telescope here on Earth) but hear their speech with a noticeable delay of 0.13 seconds? How would they reconcile this when the conversion to speech only took two seconds, not 0.13?

Given the speed of light, let’s calculate how long it would take to see an astronaut on Mars from Earth.

Distance to Mars: The average distance between Earth and Mars varies due to their elliptical orbits. On average, it’s approximately 225 million kilometers (140 million miles) when they are closest to each other.
Speed of Light: The speed of light in a vacuum is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second (186,282 miles per second).
Time Calculation: Using the formula Time = Distance / Speed, we can find the time it takes for light to travel from Mars to Earth: [ \text{Time} = \frac{\text{Distance}}{\text{Speed of Light}} ] [ \text{Time} = \frac{225 \times 10^6 , \text{km}}{300,000 , \text{km/s}} ] Calculating this: [ \text{Time} = 750 , \text{s} ] Therefore, it would take approximately 0.13 seconds to see an astronaut on Mars from Earth, assuming the speed of light as the only factor1.
Keep in mind that this calculation doesn’t account for other factors like signal transmission delays or the time it takes for the astronaut’s image to reach our eyes. In reality, it would be slightly longer due to these additional factors.

peacegirl, from where did you steal the above?

Note that it contradicts you. The writer claims it would take 0.13 seconds to see an astronaut on Mars from earth. 0.13 seconds IS NOT INSTANTANEOUS, peacegirl. Not.

But it is still wrong. The delay in seeing the astronaut on the moon would be considerably greater, because Mars, ON AVERAGE, is 12.72 light minutes from earth. We use the AVERAGE distance, because the ACTUAL distances between the two planets vary over the course of the year.

What this means is that ON AVERAGE, it would take 12.72 minutes to see an astronaut on Mars from earth.

The statement that lunar astronauts saw themselves instantly is false.

A radio is a device for converting electromagnetic waves (light) into mechanical waves (sound). This would indeed introduce a slight time differential in optical detection and radio detection, but so slight no one would notice.

[peacegirl]

[quote=davidm;1397147]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it isn't. You're only trying to confirm that he was wrong without understanding why he made the claim. That's the only way to figure out whether he was right. According to their explanation, there is a delay in converting speech to radio waves which causes a 2 second delay. But are they correct?

When astronauts stood on the Moon during the Apollo missions, they encountered a fascinating phenomenon: they could see things instantly, but there was a delay in hearing sounds. Let’s break down why this happened:

Visual Perception:
When an astronaut looked at the lunar surface or another astronaut, light traveled from the object to their eyes at the speed of light (approximately 299,792 kilometers per second).
Since the Moon has no atmosphere to scatter or slow down light, visual information reached their eyes instantly.
So, when an astronaut waved their hand or moved, their fellow astronauts could see it immediately.
Lack of Atmosphere:
The Moon lacks an atmosphere, which means there is no medium for sound waves to travel through.
On Earth, sound waves propagate through air, water, or other materials. But on the Moon, there’s nothing to carry sound.
Without air molecules to vibrate and transmit sound, any spoken words or noises made by astronauts remained silent.
Communication via Radio Waves:
Astronauts communicated using radio waves.
They wore helmets with built-in microphones and speakers.
When an astronaut spoke, their voice was converted into radio waves and transmitted to other astronauts or mission control on Earth.
These radio waves traveled at the speed of light, just like visual information.
However, the processing time for converting speech to radio waves and transmitting them introduced a slight delay.
As a result, there was a 2-second lag between an astronaut speaking and their colleagues hearing it.
In summary, the absence of an atmosphere on the Moon prevented sound waves from traveling, while radio waves allowed astronauts to communicate despite the delay. It’s a fascinating interplay between physics and technology!

I wonder what would happen on a mission to Mars. Would the conversion of sound to radio signals (accounting for the time lag and adjusted) cause ground control to see the astronauts 0.13 seconds later, or would they see the astronauts instantly (with a powerful telescope here on Earth) but hear their speech with a noticeable delay of 0.13 seconds? How would they reconcile this when the conversion to speech only took two seconds, not 0.13?

Given the speed of light, let’s calculate how long it would take to see an astronaut on Mars from Earth.

Distance to Mars: The average distance between Earth and Mars varies due to their elliptical orbits. On average, it’s approximately 225 million kilometers (140 million miles) when they are closest to each other.
Speed of Light: The speed of light in a vacuum is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second (186,282 miles per second).
Time Calculation: Using the formula Time = Distance / Speed, we can find the time it takes for light to travel from Mars to Earth: [ \text{Time} = \frac{\text{Distance}}{\text{Speed of Light}} ] [ \text{Time} = \frac{225 \times 10^6 , \text{km}}{300,000 , \text{km/s}} ] Calculating this: [ \text{Time} = 750 , \text{s} ] Therefore, it would take approximately 0.13 seconds to see an astronaut on Mars from Earth, assuming the speed of light as the only factor1.
Keep in mind that this calculation doesn’t account for other factors like signal transmission delays or the time it takes for the astronaut’s image to reach our eyes. In reality, it would be slightly longer due to these additional factors.

Originally Posted by davidm

peacegirl, from where did you steal the above?

astrorover.com/can-you-see-mars-with-a-telescope/

Originally Posted by davidm

Note that it contradicts you. The writer claims it would take 0.13 seconds to see an astronaut on Mars from earth. 0.13 seconds IS NOT INSTANTANEOUS, peacegirl. Not.

Of course he would say that. That is the present-day theory right now.

Originally Posted by davidm

But it is still wrong. The delay in seeing the astronaut on the moon would be considerably greater, because Mars, ON AVERAGE, is 12.72 light minutes from earth. We use the AVERAGE distance, because the ACTUAL distances between the two planets vary over the course of the year.

What this means is that ON AVERAGE, it would take 12.72 minutes to see an astronaut on Mars from earth.

Interesting. That would even be a better test. But we would need the comparison, which would mean someone would have to be on Mars to send back radio waves.
Or a robot.

When it comes to communicating with Mars, the time it takes for radio waves to travel between the two planets depends on their relative positions. Let’s break it down:

Distance: The closest distance between Mars and Earth is approximately 78 million kilometers.
Signal Travel Time: It generally takes about 5 to 20 minutes for a radio signal to traverse this distance12. This time varies based on the specific alignment of the planets.
Now, imagine a scenario where a human has landed on Mars and wants to send a radio message back to Earth. Here’s how it might play out:

The astronaut speaks into a communication device.
The speech is converted into radio waves.
These radio waves travel at the speed of light (approximately 299,792 kilometers per second).
The signal travels from Mars to Earth, covering the distance in the aforementioned time frame.
In practical terms, if the astronaut were to say, “Hello, Earth!” from Mars, it would take anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes for that greeting to reach our planet. Patience is key when communicating across such vast cosmic distances!

Chat Gpt

Originally Posted by davidm

The statement that lunar astronauts saw themselves instantly is false.

A radio is a device for converting electromagnetic waves (light) into mechanical waves (sound). This would indeed introduce a slight time differential in optical detection and radio detection, but so slight no one would notice.

That's why a more accurate result would come from Mars since there is a larger gap in the time it would take for the radio signals to get here. If we got a view of Mars at the same time the radio signals were detected, then we would be seeing Mars in delayed time. If the telescope viewed Mars before the radio signals got to mission control 0.13 seconds later, the view of Mars would not be delayed, but instantaneous.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why a more accurate result would come from Mars since there is a larger gap in the time it would take for the radio signals to get here. If we got a view of Mars at the same time the radio signals were detected, then we would be seeing Mars in delayed time. If the telescope viewed Mars before the radio signals got to mission control 0.13 seconds later, the view of Mars would not be delayed, but instantaneous.

We’ve already does this experiment many times, peacegirl, including on Mars with Rovers.

As noted, the 0.13 time delay is wrong. The average delay is 12.72 minutes. But even if it were only 0.13 seconds, you, in your charmingly daft way, still seem not to have comprehended that the time-delay figure CONTRADICTS you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

We’ve already does this experiment many times, peacegirl, including on Mars with Rovers.

As noted, the 0.13 time delay is wrong. The average delay is 12.72 minutes. But even if it were only 0.13 seconds, you, in your charmingly daft way, still seem not to have comprehended that the time-delay figure CONTRADICTS you.

Is there a way for us to see the result of this; ie., the signal being transmitted and seeing the Rover on Mars at the exact same time that the signal arrives? I'm sure Nasa would show this, right?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I do rather enjoy peacegirl's blameful accusations about not having read things invariably directed at the people - possibly the ONLY people - who have read literally all of it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are right.

Simply delightful.