That is why they are crackpot in the sense of just not understanding the nature of scientific claims. — apokrisis

That is why there are cowards that only choose what seems to make them sound right, and refuse to look at alternatives.

That is why Einstein said to his audience of scientists " yesterday you all believed in the ether".

You belong in that audience. You are not a scientist but a bigot.

Okay. I am not really worried about the accuracy, but about the principle.

If I understand you right, it is possible and legitimate to compare times at different locations? That 5 o'clock at location A on the orbit path, is the same as 5 o'clock (or another time) at location B?

I feel I need to justify my vote. My choice has nothing to do with the order as it was presented in the previous Poll.
I have carefully weighted each alternative and chosen the one that comes closest to my own convictions.

If you want to play innocent be my guest.

I am not complaining. I am judging you, and it is as ugly as your judgment of me.

Did you maybe wonder whether the universe is changing at all?

I am not saying it is not. I have no way of knowing that.

It is just that the whole argumentation, just like the whole of cosmology, depends on whether light is like the theory says it is.

All my threads attempt to show that this is far from obvious and beyond doubt.

I know a couple of people that stick their heads in things without knowing anything about it. — Sir2u

you should have participated in the discussions concerning this subject. Here you are supposed to be funny, not a smart-ass.

The first version of my objection was completely different. I started doubting its validity and after some time settled for a different approach.

I was not, and I am still not sure whether the idea of different times vs different positions in space made any sense.

I am presenting it here in the hope that your critical comments will help me better make up my mind.
***
1) Rømer, and Huygens' drawing of Earth (p.8/22) moving on an orbit path is rather deceiving in its simplicity. What we have is a point on Earth, the observation point - and the location where the clock is situated- that continuously travels the circumference of the earth at the same time it is orbiting the sun. The path is more a spiral than an ellipse. We cannot therefore judge of the speed of light by taking two single points on the orbit path as landmarks. We have to take into account the whole distance traveled, and the time it took the observation point to move from A to B.
The only way to, justifiably, consider the straight line BC as the distance used to calculate the speed of light, would be to have two synchronized clocks, one at B, the other at C.

2) Furthermore, Rømer and Huygens assume that they are allowed to compare the times of observations. For them, observing Jupiter's moon at, say, 5 o'clock, when Earth is at position B, and then at, say, 5:10 when it is at position C, allows us to draw a conclusion about light speed. But 5 o'clock at B is not (necessarily) the same as 5 o'clock at C.
When timing the eclipse, the astronomer uses the same clock through the seasons. Even assuming a regular clock with no deviation whatsoever, 5 o'clock will indicate another position of earth relative to the sun at different points on the orbit path. The sun does not rise or set at the same time each day, due to the tilting of the earth. The two factors, appearance of Jupiter's moon, and the time indicated by the clock are only related to each other by the presence of an observer or a proxy device. The observer/machine relates a clock time to a physical event. Both events, the appearance and the clock time, are not causally related, so we need the mediation of the observer-machine.


3) Imagine you are Rømer, you have a 17th century atomic clock on your wrist, timing the appearance of Jupiter's moon each time it appears from behind its planet. You can now easily draw a graph with time and distance. That is in fact what Rømer's argumentation ultimately amounts to.
What is wrong with such a view?
Well, it is simply too... simple.

The whole point is the moment the observer (can be a machine) sees the moon reappearing from behind Jupiter. In our graph the observer is implicitly represented by the times shown on the clock, even though they are two absolutely distinct processes. In the case of a machine, programs and physical processes react to the detection of the moon, and then signal the clocking mechanism. As noted there are no causal links between what happens with the clock and the behavior of Jupiter's moon. Its appearance or disappearance have no effect on the functioning of the timing device.
Let us take an example where a causal link between two separate events can be clearly demonstrated. If a stone falls in a ponds, ripples are created on the surface of the water. It is impossible to have one without the other, while the (dis)appearance of the satellite is completely unrelated to the clocking mechanism, unless we create an artificial, technological, link between them. This link I call a proxy observer.
For Hume all events are in fact isolated events. What Hume, as far as I know, did not take into account is that we are able to control and manipulate some events better than others. We have no saying over the orbit of Jupiter's moons, or any other astronomic body, but we can decide what event we want detected and when a clocking mechanism should register it. So, even if we cannot prove the existence of causal links, and must be satisfied with empirical and statistical certainty, we can distinguish between events which we can control, and those we cannot.
Going back to our main theme, the speed of light, we can create correlations between events and timing processes. What we must realize is that we need at least two physical events and a timing procedure to obtain a meaningful set.
In the case in question, we need the appearance of Jupiter's moon linked to distance and time. And distance has to be the distance effectively traveled by the clock and the observer, and not a geometrical abstraction.


4) The conclusion that it takes longer for light to travel to C than to B is therefore not justified by Rømer-Huygen's argumentation. Even though more precise calculations might confirm their conclusion.

How can he put his head in the bucket if it disintegrated? — Sapientia

the finger
edit: should be probably melted, instead of disintegrated.

God accidentally spills a bucket of clear liquid. — Nils Loc

and saw that it was good.

guy sees a bucket of clear liquid. He puts his finger in it which immediately disintegrates. Curious as to why, he puts his head in the bucket, eyes open wide.

I would like to clarify a possible misunderstanding.

I do not deny the existence of rationality. I am just placing it in a continuum of emotions, many we share with animals.

I do not believe in the dichotomy emotion/ratio.

At the same time, we need the world to be rational.

Just look at a lab mouse in a maze, trying to make sense of the intentions of the psychologist!

I would like to put forward a claim I have defended in other contexts:

"Rationality is a form of emotionality"

I mean by that that through experience we learn that the world, physical and social, is governed by rules, and that it is in our interest to at least know and understand them. If not follow them,

Those rules get an emotional charge attributed to them, and we tend to favor some rules above others.

I do not believe there are separate functions that distinguish man from animal.

I would consider the difference rather as a result of the interaction of two levels:
emotion and memory.

It would take us too far and I won't try to prove it, simply posit it as an unproven opinion:

There are no programs in the brain, the whole brain is different kinds of memories, guided by different kinds of emotions.

I think he means the Goddess? The one who shared a body with her brother? She was hot!

it is always sad to feel left out.

Buffy is one of the best TV shows ever. Just a few months ago I went back and watched it all (and Angel). — Michael

Yeah, love them both too.

You think we could open a thread about the question whether vampires can exist?

Wesley Wyndam-Pryce — Michael

Right! That's the guy!

I'm more like a rogue scholar — Wosret

You remind me of the "rogue demon hunter" in Angel, or was it Buffy? You know, the English guy.

Aha. Proof that Hachem ain't had no education. — Michael

I shamefully admit I did not finish my Phd in Philosophy.

As long as it's not teachers — Baden

I don't know Teachers. Care to elaborate?

But what if the distance between Earth and Jupiter is different when the times of disappearance and re-appearance are recorded? That's when you have information from which to calculate the speed of light. — Michael Ossipoff

The whole argumentation is based on the idea that we see the (dis)appearance at the moment it happens, and that distance does not have any effect on our perception and observations.

I am afraid that is a circular argument that cannot be proven.

Please note that I am not discussing the speed of light, only Rømer's argument how to calculate it.

@ the moderators

I think now would be a good time to close this thread.

I understand now why you are so worried about the state of science and the way it is treated in this forum.

beautiful baby. Is that your kid?

sure is.

Thank you for sharing, Wosret.

Anybody else?

And how do you feel about all that?
edit: I meant, about what you said, Not the polemic. unclear humor I'm afraid.

It can be about me. — Wosret

Tell us something about yourself.

1. I am not a moderator. — unenlightened

My bad.

It does not make me respect you more though.

Why don't you come out of your safe anonymity as a moderator and criticize my empirical objections with your authoritative arguments?

I will concede to you that you do not make a single chance of convincing me if you stick to the same strategy of simply exposing the accepted theory of light.

But I am certainly willing to take arguments seriously which can show that the pictures I take and the interpretations I give are undefendable. Even for me, stubbornness can only get you so far.

So, dear @unenlightened, put up or shut up.

Yes, and you are full of it.

I agree entirely with both points. However, when someone performs open heart surgery on my ego without anaesthetic, I want them to have a very steady hand and know what they are doing; saintliness would be too much to ask, but I'd want them to have their sadism and aggression under close control. — unenlightened

I would prefer a very good diagnosis, and not mere prejudice.

If people start to avoid a forum, that's a problem — SophistiCat

Did you give them a reason to stay with the quality of your posts, or is it so much easier to look for a scapegoat and avoid looking at your own shortcomings?

edit: I have been a member less than 3 weeks. What about you and your Friends?

I am glad I made your day. Your reply is another sample of your worth.

The level of absurd posts in the philosophy of science is an example of where this gap is clear that causes me to avoid it. — TimeLine

This says more about you than me, that you choose to vent your opinion in such a "righteous" way instead of putting your money where your mouth is.

Maybe you will be ready to go farther than every detractor has gone before, and prove me wrong by more than general reference to the contemporary state of science.

If you cannot, then do not be surprised if I say that your opinion is not worth... squat.

That is good enough for me, and I apologize for insulting you.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me or defending science as it is now. I resent being insulted or belittled because the people who have been doing it did not earn the right to do it.
I stand by my words, but if you feel that they do not apply to you, then they do not.

You will understand that I do not agree with your point of view. What would be the use of a forum of Philosophy of Science if only "legitimate" science is allowed?

I would be the last to support all kinds of "unscientific" tendencies, but I would not know how to turn that into an acceptable rule.

In a philosophical forum only arguments should count... and patience. I have no illusion that I can make everybody change their mind, and I am fine with it. So maybe people have to realize that if they cannot convince me, that is because their arguments are bad, or I am just too stubborn. So what?

I was hoping that someone else would protest against this, but apparently it is not such a great issue, or nobody understands it the way I do.
Anyway.
You position is a shame to your function as a moderator, Sapientia. Doesn't your name hint at sapiens, at the thinking Man?

Sophisticat's solution is not not-practical. It is ethically wrong. What you are in fact saying is that if it were practical you would put all posts that you deem not worthy of being published in this forum, in a kind of dustbin or waste container. Just to show that you respect the letter of the freedom of speech.

But at the same time you would be giving in to an idiotic, fanatic, uncritical attitude towards science, that in fact opposes in every way the spirit of science or free thought.

It is clear to me that, if there is going to be science here, it should be real science. — T Clark

You are just like @SophistiCat, @Srap Tasmaner and @VagabondSpectre. When you speak of true science you are all talks and zeal, and you wouldn't know true science if it bit you in the ass.

This is VagabondSpecter's answer when I challenged him to answer to my empirical objections:
"Nobody is going to try and debug your poorly executed experiments."

And I am still waiting for anybody of the Friends of Make Science Great Again to show me what they are capable of. Whether they can do more than organize lynch parties and book burnings.

I am tired of being courteous to you while you keep insulting me without even the decency to look at the issues instead of reciting what you have learned by heart.

As far as I am concerned, it is you who do not belong in a philosophical forum.

You are just a bunch of pathetic cowardly bullies.

I would be very much obliged if somebody gave me some links or references for VagabondSpectre's interpretation. — Hachem

Here is the captain speaking. To all Friends of Make Science Great Again! Do not! I repeat, Do Not engage the enemy! Evasive maneuver Alpha