A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If this book does not conflict with reality, then please explain why we detect the neutrinos just after we see the supernova. So on sight at least, we know he was wrong - unless you want to say that neutrinos travel at different speeds, all faster than light, but varied in such a way that they reach earth just as if they were just a bit slower than light, and it was in fact light that we detect.

Please see post #3407, sometimes we see the neutrinos before the light, sometimes after the light, depending on the distance to the supernova.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Hmm. So you're saying she really is just so incredibly stupid and cognitively impaired that she can't recognize the absurdity of claiming that light travelled from A to B yet was never in transit and had no travel time?

You don't think there's any chance that she is aware at some level that this is not quite right, and is rather dishonestly trying to avoid it?

Cognitive dysfunction is not a simple thing. The brain is not a single unit. Perhaps there are times when she kinda thinks that she may be off track in some way but nothing clear enough for her to go with. But if you look at the responses she gives its as if she can only comprehend a very vague outline of some topic and that is what she addresses. I think that if she doesn't answer something it is because she doesn't have a clue as to how to do so.

Also if she's been this way for a while and all sorts of Lessans disinformation is just stuck there then that is all she has to work with. Learning is a brain function and it too can be greatly impaired by mental illness.

Young people should spend more time around nursing homes so they can get a good idea of what can happen to their seemingly indestructible selves from the revenges of time.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would seem to me that any sub-atomic particle coming from the Star would take time to be detected, but we could see the Star explode if it was large enough to be seen with a telescope.

What actually happens is that if the star is near we can detect the neutrinos before we see the light, but only because neutrinos are emitted before the light and travel just a little slower than light. So if a star is far enough away the light will catch up to the neutrinos and we see them at the same time, if a star is farther away the light will arrive first. In all cases we see the light after it has taken the necessary time to travel to us we DO NOT SEE THE STAR IMEDIATELY, only after a delay.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're dodging the simple, straightforward question

If a star explodes (supernova) right now, which we'll call T1 , according to Lessans we would be able to see the supernova right now at T1

Supernovas produce neutrinos, which travel out in all directions at close to the speed of light.

So, the neutrinos will arrive here on Earth and be detected after the travel time which we'll call X.

Again, supernova at T1, neutrino arrival at T1+X

So we should see the supernova instantly, at T1 and detect the neutrinos at some time after we saw the supernova, T1+X necessarily if Lessans was correct, right?

How do you explain what actually happens in reality (which is we see the supernova at the same time the neutrinos arrive) within Lessans "instantaneous sight" context?

Maybe the Supernova is not large enough to be seen with a telescope until it reaches it's mass potential before it starts to compress. By that time the neutrinos (these sub-atomic particles) have had time to reach Earth so the Supernova and the neutrinos are detected at close intervals. Just a theory.

[thedoc]

Since the subject has turned to supernovas it seems that everyone here is just too damned lazy to look it up and find out just what the interval is between Neutrinos and visible light. And you guys are so phony as to call Peacegirl dishonest when just a little research would give you the accurate information, I am dissapointed at your lack.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The majority is not an absolute term, it's a subjective one. You had previously said that everyone, always is subject to the same conditioning. Someone's appearance seemingly changing relative to the level of affection felt is also not an absolute standard.

In some culture's low hanging breasts are considered beautiful, so a person in that culture would not have the same standard of beauty as someone in an American culture. Each society creates its own standards, and all of them influence what we are drawn to. If a child hears over and over that one person is beautiful with a positive intonation and another is ugly with a negative intonation, he will start to be conditioned to liking those features that get a positive response from others. Children are conditioned at a very young age which makes it difficult to determine whether their attraction to certain types are inherent, or whether they are learned.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, are ideas about human beauty subjective, relative, and subject to change and yes subject to influence, as I maintain them to be based on actual evidence and which you seem to concede here, or are they unchanging absolute standards conditioned into all children?
You can't have it both ways.

This is not a law of nature, as in "man's will is not free", but there is a conditioning that can be easily seen when children attach these words to certain type individuals. This is not hard to test.

Some people like heavy people because they feel superior around them, since they can't get a thinner person. There are all kinds of psychological reasons that may factor into one's choice for a mate, but that doesn't change the fact that conditioning does take place, and it begins in early childhood. You can't tell me that society's attitude toward body image is healthy. I feel sorry for the youth of today.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The consequences of standards of beauty in any society are irrelevant to the point of whether they are subjective and relative and changing or absolute standards conditioned into people.

Within the range of "beauty" there is flexibility, but you will rarely see a child point to someone who does not meet the standard of "pretty" or "attractive" in comparison to someone who does meet them. These standards are created, they are not part of reality, which Lessans was trying to explain. That's why Lessans called this chapter Words, Not Reality, because it's the word that creates the standard which all of us are subject to if we live in a certain society. That is why only certain individuals are accepted in a beauty contest because their features fit into the standard, while others fall below. It's really sad for those young girls who feel they are not as pretty as their beautiful counterparts. It damages self-esteem in the most destructive way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here is the snippet before peacegirl changed molecules to photons

.

Note the "these molecules (photons)" which indicates he did not understand that there were always new or different photons arriving constantly, but that somehow the light arrives only once. So, rather than a constant stream of cars going by on a freeway, the cars arrive and park here.

Why are you bringing this up again? I already explained that he was not a physicist and, more importantly than the word used, he wanted the concept to be understood. You are nitpicking to try to get people to turn against him. FYI, he didn't say light arrives and parks, or even imply that. This shows me how low you are willing to go to make him a laughingstock. Where does the following excerpt give any indication that he believed light is not always moving in a constant stream. Admit when you're wrong LadyShea, or I will start calling you a liar.

Once the light is here it remains here because the photons
of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us.
When the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in
darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side.
When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not
mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us
because these photons are already present.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already explained that he was not a physicist and, more importantly than the word used, he wanted the concept to be understood.

You don't have to be a physicist to know that light does not consist of molecules. All you need is a clue.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Admit when you're wrong LadyShea, or I will start calling you a liar.

On that note, is it possible for light to travel from A to B (at a finite speed) without ever being in transit or having any travel time?

Will you admit when you are wrong? Or are you a liar?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Please see post #3407, sometimes we see the neutrinos before the light, sometimes after the light, depending on the distance to the supernova.

I was not aware of that, actually. What causes that? But still they are detected close to when we can start to see it - not centuries apart.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I was not aware of that, actually. What causes that? But still they are detected close to when we can start to see it - not centuries apart.

The neutrinos are emitted an hour or more before the visible light but travel just a tiny bit slower than light, so at some point thousands of light years out the light will catch up to the neutrinos, but if we are closer we detect the neutrinos first.

It's getting just a bit frustrating I try to post some accurate information but it seems like I'm on everybodys ignore list.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe the Supernova is not large enough to be seen with a telescope until it reaches it's mass potential before it starts to compress. By that time the neutrinos (these sub-atomic particles) have had time to reach Earth so the Supernova and the neutrinos are detected at close intervals. Just a theory.

Ermmm... then how come we always see the supernova and detect the neutrinos close after one another?

Because if what you said was true, we should detect some way early, and some way late, depending on the actual size and distance of the supernova.

This is not the case, however. They always coincide roughtly, based on distance only. We should have close, large novas showing up BEFORE the neutrinos, and small, distant ones appear centuries after the neutrinos.

In reality this does not happen. The ones that are close actually show up AFTER the neutrinos arrive, yet another piece of evidence that contradicts instant vision.

[But]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I was not aware of that, actually. What causes that? But still they are detected close to when we can start to see it - not centuries apart.

Probably the same reason that people build neutrino detectors on the bottom of the ocean that look down through the Earth. Light is very easily absorbed and re-emitted by almost anything, which takes time. It takes photons a million years to get from the core of the Sun to the surface. The peak of the light is from the outer layers and when it gets out of the immediate vicinity of the star, it's already pretty much blown to smithereens.

[But]

Oops, I think that wasn't the question. thedoc, maybe you could read your bolded passages again:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Without being a 'nit picker' (well I probably am, but thats beside the point), the neutrino burst is released a short time before the flash of light when the star explodes, but they travel just a little bit slower than light. for stars within a certain distance the neutrinos will arrive before the light and is used as a signal that a nova has occured which allows astronomers to watch as the star explodes. At some distance the neutrinos and light arrive at the same time further away they arrive later and cannot be used as advance warning. In this way Neutrinos have allowed astronomers to observe nearby Nova as it happens. But the fact that neutrinos travel at a finite speed and light arrives after the neutrino burst proves that we see light after it has traveled to us and not instantly.

Supernovae - from Wikipedia,

SN 1987A


Neutrinos are an important product of Type Ib and Ic and Type II (core-collapse) supernovae. In such events, the density at the core becomes so high (1017 kg/m3) that the degeneracy of electrons is not enough to prevent protons and electrons from combining to form a neutron and an electron neutrino. A second and more important neutrino source is the thermal energy (100 billion kelvins) of the newly formed neutron core, which is dissipated via the formation of neutrino-antineutrino pairs of all flavors.[57] Most of the energy produced in supernovas is thus radiated away in the form of an immense burst of neutrinos. The first experimental evidence of this phenomenon came in 1987, when neutrinos from supernova 1987A were detected. The water-based detectors Kamiokande II and IMB detected 11 and 8 antineutrinos of thermal origin,[57] respectively, while the scintillator-based Baksan detector found 5 neutrinos (lepton number = 1) of either thermal or electron-capture origin, in a burst lasting less than 13 seconds. It is thought that neutrinos would also be produced from other events such as the collision of neutron stars. The neutrino signal from the supernova arrived at earth several hours before the arrival of the first electromagnetic radiation, as expected from the evident fact that the latter emerges along with the shock wave. The exceptionally feeble interaction with normal matter allowed the neutrinos to pass through the churning mass of the exploding star, while the electromagnetic photons were slowed.
Because neutrinos interact so little with matter, it is thought that a supernova's neutrino emissions carry information about the innermost regions of the explosion. Much of the visible light comes from the decay of radioactive elements produced by the supernova shock wave, and even light from the explosion itself is scattered by dense and turbulent gases. Neutrinos, on the other hand, pass through these gases, providing information about the supernova core (where the densities were large enough to influence the neutrino signal). Furthermore, the neutrino burst is expected to reach Earth before any electromagnetic waves, including visible light, gamma rays or radio waves. The exact time delay depends on the velocity of the shock wave and on the thickness of the outer layer of the star. For a Type II supernova, astronomers expect the neutrino flood to be released seconds after the stellar core collapse, while the first electromagnetic signal may emerge hours later. The SNEWS project uses a network of neutrino detectors to monitor the sky for candidate supernova events; the neutrino signal will provide a useful advance warning of a star exploding in the Milky Way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You don't have to be a physicist to know that light does not consist of molecules. All you need is a clue.

On that note, is it possible for light to travel from A to B (at a finite speed) without ever being in transit or having any travel time?

Of course not. For you to make this kind of statement to try and negate efferent vision is being shortsighted. The reason efferent vision is so hard to conceive of is because you are trying to figure it out from the wrong end (from the position of afferent vision), just as philosophers tried to negate determinism from the wrong end (from the position of free will), and it didn't work.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not Spacemonkey. For you to make this kind of statement if foolhardy. The reason efferent vision is so hard to conceive of is because you are trying to figure it out from the afferent model, as I've said before. You're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, and it won't work.

I didn't make a statement. I asked a question. One based not upon the afferent model, but upon your responses. So please stop lying. The square peg is efferent vision, and the round hole is provided by your answers to my questions. Afferent vision doesn't even enter into it. I asked the above question because after agreeing that the light at the camera travelled there from the object being photographed (at a finite speed) YOU said this:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, you're losing the whole idea behind efferent vision. The frequency can only be the same as the actual object because there is no travel time when you are looking at the object directly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light is not in transit Spacemonkey when it comes to objects that are resolved by our retina, or by the film in a camera. You are the confused one, sorry.

You said these things as an excuse for not answering this question:

If the object changes color after the light in question leaves its surface, but before that light reaches the camera (i.e. before the photograph is taken), can the frequency of that travelling light change while it is in transit (between the object and the camera) so that it continues to match the real-time color of the object?

Now that you've retracted those absurd claims you still need to answer this question. You've said that the frequency of the light at the camera (when the photograph is taken) determines the color of the photograph produced on the film. I want to know if that light, which previously travelled to get there, always had those same frequency properties or if those properties would have changed at some point during transit (so as to match any changes in the object occurring during that transit time).

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not. For you to make this kind of statement to try and negate efferent vision is being shortsighted. The reason efferent vision is so hard to conceive of is because you are trying to figure it out from the wrong end (from the position of afferent vision), just as philosophers tried to negate determinism from the wrong end (from the position of free will), and it didn't work.

Wrong. I'm trying to figure it out (or rather help you figure it out) from your own position, and it's still completely incoherent on your own view and by your own descriptions and answers. You are lying to yourself every time you try to accuse me of presupposing any aspect of afferent vision, or try to suggest that afferent vision has anything at all to do with the contradictions and absurdities you keep leading yourself into.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Oops, I think that wasn't the question. thedoc, maybe you could read your bolded passages again:

The comment made was that neutrinos and light arrived at the same time, this was to give a more accurate discription of what happens, you should read the thread again and not rely on memory.

[But]

I thought your point was that the light overtakes the neutrinos when the distance is great enough. I don't think that's ever been observed because I haven't seen it mentioned regarding an upper limit on the speed of neutrinos, which notwithstanding the CERN and Fermilab results, is said to be consistent with being the speed of light.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not. For you to make this kind of statement to try and negate efferent vision is being shortsighted. The reason efferent vision is so hard to conceive of is because you are trying to figure it out from the wrong end (from the position of afferent vision), just as philosophers tried to negate determinism from the wrong end (from the position of free will), and it didn't work.

Where did Spacemonkey assume any particular position other than your own? Whatever the model is you're proposing, do you mean that it's incompatible with logic?

[thedoc]

It seems that the speed of neutrinos isn't settled yet,

SpeedFollowing the results of the September 2011 observation of faster-than-light neutrino velocities, the OPERA neutrino anomaly, the value of the neutrino velocity is the subject of theoretical and experimental studies.[29]

[edit] TheoryBefore the idea of neutrino oscillations came up, it was generally assumed that neutrinos travel below or at the speed of light.

According to the theory of special relativity, the question of neutrino velocity is closely related to their mass. If neutrinos are massless, they must travel at the speed of light. However, if they have mass, they cannot reach the speed of light.
Within the framework of the Standard-Model Extension (SME theory), various theorists have suggested that the neutrino might have a tachyonic nature,[30][31][32][33] while others have disputed the possibility.[34]

In some theories of quantum gravity, such as the superfluid vacuum theory, superluminal propagation of particles, including neutrinos, is allowed. According to this theory, at very high velocities the behavior of the particles becomes distinct from the relativistic one - they can reach the speed of light limit at finite energy; also, the faster-than-light propagation is possible without requiring moving objects to have imaginary mass.[35][36]

[edit] ExperimentIn the early 1980s, first measurements of neutrino speed were done using pulsed pion beams (produced by pulsed proton beams hitting a target). The pions decayed producing neutrinos, and the neutrino interactions observed within a time window in a detector at a distance were consistent with the speed of light. This measurement was repeated in 2007 using the MINOS detectors, which found the speed of 3 GeV neutrinos to be 1.000051(29) c at 68% confidence level, and at 99% confidence level a range between 0.999976 c to 1.000126 c. The central value is higher than the speed of light and is consistent with superluminal velocity; however, the uncertainty is great enough that the result also does not rule out speeds less than or equal to light at this high confidence level. This measurement set an upper bound on the mass of the muon neutrino of 50 MeV at 99% confidence.[37][38] The detectors for the project are being upgraded, and new results are not expected until at least 2012.

The same observation was made, on a somewhat larger scale, with supernova 1987A (SN 1987A). 10-MeV antineutrinos from the supernova were detected within a time window that was consistent with a speed of light for the neutrinos. So far, the question of neutrino masses cannot be decided based on measurements of the neutrino speed.

In September 2011, the OPERA collaboration released calculations showing velocities of 17-GeV and 28-GeV neutrinos exceeding the speed of light in their experiments. In November 2011, OPERA repeated its experiment with changes so that the speed could be determined individually for each detected neutrino. The results showed the same faster-than-light speed. More analyses and studies are underway.(See: OPERA neutrino anomaly.)

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we're in our solar system, the light is coming from the Sun which means that the Earth's rotation determines night and day. If it's not coming from our Solar system, then the light is coming from another light source. If we're taking a picture of something at night, we are creating an artificial light by means of a flash in a digital camera that mimics daylight.

So, you admit that your claim that the light comes from the Sun is inaccurate. Thank you.

[Vivisectus]

The Opera measurements have been shown to have been a miscalibration - Neutrinos do not travel faster than light. Nr. 1 Son is studying atro-physics at the uni here and he has been looking into it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Happy New Year to you. May it be prosperous and productive and healthy for you and yours.

Thank you LadyShea; same to you and your family!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And for fuck's sake to avoid plagiarism all you have to do is copy and paste the url link, or put the authors name and the publication you found it in after it.

What is so difficult? I know you know how to copy and paste, and I know you know how to type.

Granted, this particle bit is from an unknown author sent as a chain email and posted around blogs and Facebook, but you could just cite that "I got this via email" or "I read this on this blog"

I didn't get that on a blog or facebook, or a chain email, or I would have quoted my sources. I got it off of Wiki, and I didn't think it was necessary. I have always posted the url link except for a few times that I forgot or didn't find it necessary.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In spite of all of the antagonism in here, I wish everyone a healthy and happy New Year. Just to let you know, this is not my writing. God forbid LadyShea catches me in a plagiarism.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As we progress through to the end of 2011, I want to thank you for your educational e-mails over the past year. I am totally screwed up now and have little chance of recovery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just a quick review,

Peacegirl/Lessans states the light from the Sun takes aprox. 8.5 min. to get here but is white and has no color frequency till it contacts an object.

The light (as condition of sight) travels to the eye and signals the brain to look out and see the object, but the light does not transmit any information about that object.

You're wrong right there. The light is already at the eye; it doesn't travel when you're seeing in real time.

Originally Posted by thedoc

The brain looking through the eyes sees the object directly and the frequency of the light at the object corosponds with the color of the object which is the light that the eye actually sees. The eye does not see the light that has traveled to the eye, only the light 'at the object'.

You are so confused I don't know how to answer this. The brain, looking through the eyes, sees the object directly...(the rest of your post is complete babble).

Originally Posted by thedoc

How the brain/eye can see the object/light at the object, is not important, we just need to believe that this is how things work.

It is important to understand how the brain/eye can see the object (the efferent model), but it's more important to describe what's actually going on based on what Lessans observed. I've said all along that empirical proof will come in time, but people have to first understand why Lessans is challenging afferent sight and why it's significant.

Originally Posted by thedoc

This is all necessary for us to believe so that Lessans can astutely observe that the brain/eyes project words out onto blank screen of objects and people, representing false value judgments that lead people to believe things that are false and untrue.

The 'Golden Age' will surely follow.

The Golden Age is about equality, and using words that make some people physiognomically inferior to others is one of those injustices, so, yes, the removal of these words in conversational language will be an important change.

Originally Posted by thedoc

I hope this has cleared everything up so people will stop arguing with Peacegirl and just believe.

No, it's not cleared up because your explanation is meant to be humorous and make people laugh. This discovery is not meant to entertain; it's meant to enlighten.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

i don't think you will find the kinds of people you are looking for on this forum. They expect a level of conciseness, accuracy and evidence far greater than you or Lessans could ever provide. You have to realize where you are. Anybody here can check anything you claim usually in a few keystrokes so you better check your facts before they do. Lessans is a person of the last century, he didn't have the resources available to him that the posters on this forum have today. Whereas Lessans had available to him a few outdated books people on the internet have many libraries of books all of which are electronically searchable. They will spot nonsense and call it out almost instantly.

Laws of nature do not change NA just because we're in a different century. He discovered an invariable law.