edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,883
- 1,830
You struck out!You can spew all the doublespeak you want, but you claimed you can't PROVE your PERCEPTION of what is happening depicts the present, but the contact with the ball proves the accuracy in observing the present.Clearly the batter's PERCEPTION accurately depicted the present he observed in spite of the microsecond delay or he would not have hit the ball.Actually it is proven every time a batter hits a home run!
Does the batter defy physics and travel into the future so he can observe the moment of present time? If not, then it's not proven when a batter hits a home run.
Argument over!
The batter's perception is not the issue. Everything the batter perceives is already in the past. The ball traveling toward him is already in the past. Light had to reflect off the ball and travel to his eyes and be perceived, the present is gone. When his bat contacts the ball, both bat and ball are already in the past. Objects meet, a force is felt, nerves are stimulated, sense of touch provides a sensation of hitting a ball and the signal travels to the brain to become a perception of hitting the ball... all of it is in the past, it cannot be in the moment of present time. Physics does not allow it.
We can go through all the physical examples you wish, it's always going to be the same. You cannot observe the present, physics has to happen, time has to happen.
No, it proves accuracy in observing the past... the present cannot be observed.