A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Relativity forbids any transmission of information faster than the speed of light.

Let's say Alice has a friend, Bob, on a fast spaceship which is travelling away from Earth and has a telescope and a numerical display on board. Alice shows this week's winning lottery numbers to Bob using her own numerical display. Both of their displays have large, bright numbers ("Meets the requirements of Efferent vision (TM)" it says on the package).

Bob sees the lottery numbers instantly using his telescope. He shows them to Alice using the display on the spaceship. Because he is quickly moving away from Earth, in Bob's reference frame Alice sees the lottery numbers in her own past, before the lottery takes place. She wins the lottery, takes a trip to the Bahamas and promptly forgets to send Bob the winning numbers.

This is how it is purported to work because science has laid claim on this theory, but it has not been proven.

[peacegirl]

delete

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is how it is purported to work because science has laid claim on this theory, but it has not been proven.

Of course not, but that's not the point. It's deceitful to even argue that a scientific theory has not been 'proven', as if that matters. The theory in question - relativity- has huge amounts of supporting evidence, and the alternative you're presenting can't pass basic sanity checks. Why do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you produce idiocy like this?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't read David. Because there are actual physicists who have reason to believe there is no fourth dimension, you fire more insults at me, as if this changes reality.

Apparently, you can't read.

These people aren't questioning the observed fact that clocks in different reference frames run at different speeds -- and that, therefore, two events can be simultaneous in one reference frame but not in another -- nor are they in any way questioning relativity.

They're noting the fact that the rate at which time passes depends upon factors such as one's reference frame (this is well established and is a cornerstone of relativity theory), and they're proposing that perhaps there are explanations for the fact that don't depend on treating time as a 4th dimension.


And by the way, that information cannot be transferred faster than light has been quite thoroughly tested. Which, of course, you'd know if you'd bothered to learn anything about the subject.


As a further aside, you're demonstrating once again that after all this time, you're still too close-minded and/or stupid to grasp what the word "theory" means.

Or you're just pretending to be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Of course not, but that's not the point. It's deceitful to even argue that a scientific theory has not been 'proven', as if that matters. The theory in question - relativity- has huge amounts of supporting evidence, and the alternative you're presenting can't pass basic sanity checks. Why do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you produce idiocy like this?

Dragar, why are you telling me that scientific theory is equivalent to proof, when it is not absolute proof? Science has been wrong before. It does happen. This idea of delayed time seeing has just been around a lot longer and therefore has graduated into fact. There is no proof that we see in delayed time. There have been conclusions drawn based on certain observations (the moons of Jupiter, etc.) that it must be the time/light delay causing what we're seeing, but "supporting" evidence is not absolute proof. Sometimes the supporting evidence turns out to confirm a theory, but sometimes the theory is shown to be wrong and needs to be thrown out. To say that what I'm presenting can't pass basic sanity checks and that it is idiocy is just your rendition of plain old vindictiveness.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't read David. Because there are actual physicists who have reason to believe there is no fourth dimension, you fire more insults at me, as if this changes reality?

According to the conventional view, clocks run slower at high speeds due to the nature of Minkowski spacetime itself as a result of both time dilation and length contraction. But Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that the slow clocks can better be described by the relative velocity between the two reference frames, which the clocks measure, not which the clocks are a part of. In this view, space and time are two separate entities.

Read more at: Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space

Yeah, read what The Lone Ranger wrote, moron.

They are not questioning relativity theory. And real-time seeing is IMPOSSIBLE under relativity theory.

Of course, it's impossible even if relativity theory were false. That real-time seeing does not occur has been known for hundreds of years, long before relativity theory was discovered. All of this has been explained to you repeatedly, of course. You're a moron and so was Lessans.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Apparently, you can't read.

These people aren't questioning the observed fact that clocks in different reference frames run at different speeds -- and that, therefore, two events can be simultaneous in one reference frame but not in another -- nor are they in any way questioning relativity.

They are questioning special relativity the way it is being interpreted.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

They're noting the fact that the rate at which time passes depends upon factors such as one's reference frame (this is well established and is a cornerstone of relativity theory), and they're proposing that perhaps there are explanations for the fact that don't depend on treating time as a 4th dimension.

That is true. They are denying that spacetime actually exists as one entity and that clocks do not run faster or slower in special relativity.

Light clocks A and B moving horizontally through space. According to length contraction, clock A should tick faster than clock B. In a new study, scientists argue that there is no length contraction, and both clocks should tick at the same rate in accordance with special relativity. Sorli and Fiscaletti

Read more at: Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And by the way, that information cannot be transferred faster than light has been quite thoroughly tested. Which, of course, you'd know if you'd bothered to learn anything about the subject.

There is no transfer of information that goes faster than the speed of light because light is not bringing any information. If you had understood anything, you would have seen that this doesn't even relate.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As a further aside, you're demonstrating once again that after all this time, you're still too close-minded and/or stupid to grasp what the word "theory" means.

Or you're just pretending to be.

I know what the word theory means. Theory is a hunch or hypothesis where data is gathered that either offers evidential support or it doesn't. Although supporting evidence may offer a strong likelihood that something is true, there is the possibility that the evidence doesn't give a complete or accurate picture of what is going on in reality. Science is supposed to leave room for the unexpected. Well this is one of those times. Too bad you don't act like a scientist.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, why are you telling me that scientific theory is equivalent to proof, when it is not absolute proof?

I'm not, you idiot. I'm saying that 'absolute proof' is a ridiculous concept to be discussing outside of mathematics. Can't you read?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, why are you telling me that scientific theory is equivalent to proof, when it is not absolute proof? Science has been wrong before. It does happen. This idea of delayed time seeing has just been around a lot longer and therefore has graduated into fact. There is no proof that we see in delayed time. There have been conclusions drawn based on certain observations (the moons of Jupiter, etc.) that it must be the time/light delay causing what we're seeing, but "supporting" evidence is not absolute proof. Sometimes the supporting evidence turns out to confirm a theory, but sometimes the theory is shown to be wrong and needs to be thrown out. To say that what I'm presenting can't pass basic sanity checks and that it is idiocy is just your version of plain old vindictiveness.

Peacegirl, are you completely devoid of reading comprehension? Dragar, nor anyone else, has ever said that a scientific theory is proof of itself, an accepted scientific theory simply has a great deal of evidence supporting it and very little, if any, against if.

No-one says that delayed time seeing has been proven, but the evidence is for it and there is little against it.

And no, there is not "something else going on" that is your own little fantasy for something you can't understand, and can't explain.

[ceptimus]

Special relativity DOES say that the two travelling clocks both tick at the same rate. It says that they BOTH tick slower than 'stationary' clocks. Of course, 'travelling' and 'stationary' have carefully defined meanings under special relativity - the 'travelling' clocks are the ones that have experienced acceleration in order to provide the relative speed.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what the word theory means. Theory is a hunch or hypothesis where someone sets up empirical testing in order to gather data that either supports or rejects the theory. Although supporting evidence does give some credence to a theory if the methodology is accurate, there is the possibility that a particular theory could be wrong in spite of appearances and in spite of all of so-called "supporting" evidence.

Good grief! No, that's not what a theory is!

You can't be as stupid as you pretend to be. Honestly, I don't believe it's even possible that you could be as stupid as you pretend to be.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is how it is purported to work because science has laid claim on this theory, but it has not been proven.

Relativity has been proven over and over again. Your ideas are ruled out by well-tested scientific theories. Apart from that, they don't explain anything.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean I can't change the phenomenon I am describing? All I'm doing is offering an alternate explanation as to how Lessans believed the eyes work. How am I no longer explaining or describing the same phenomenon that I purported to be explaining?

You wrote, and I quote, "the efferent account is what changes this phenomenon". An account of a phenomenon cannot change the actual phenomenon. An account is simply an explanation or a description and it is made up of words and/or numbers. Those words and/or numbers do not have the ability to change the thing they are being used to explain or describe.

It is as if you were saying that the flat Earth account changes the Earth from being an oblate spheroid to being a flat disk. Or, saying that the geocentric account changes the solar system such that it causes the Sun to orbit the Earth rather than the other way around.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm tired of explaining the same thing over and over again with only laughter and jokes at my expense.

You have to have been doing a thing before you can get tired of doing it. You can't get tired of doing something you have not been doing. You could get tired of not doing it, but you appear to have a considerable amount of endurance when it comes to not providing actual explanations.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That may be one definition of ratio, but I expressed another. It is the relationship between two things. Those things are the relationship between the object's size and brightness to the viewer. I am fine using the term ratio in this context.

I did over a hundred times. Efferent vision.

Efferent vision is not an explanation. It is simply a name that you and Lessans have given to an incoherent collection of assertions that are unsupported by evidence of any sort.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would be seeing the bug magnified due to the type of lens that the light is striking. You still have no conception of why traveling light does not bring us the image apart from the object, do you?

If the light is striking a lens then the light is in motion when it strikes the lens. If the light is in motion then it is traveling either at the speed of light or at some speed less than the speed of light. If the eyes are using the light which is striking the lens in order to see the object, then the eyes cannot be seeing the object instantaneously.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This claim was made from empirical observation. It cannot be that difficult to test this in a controlled manner. Unfortunately, confirmation bias is alive and well and the tests that were done are not conclusive yet they try to suggest that this matches their belief that dogs see like we do because the eyes are a sense organ. If they didn't try to match the results with their hypothesis, it would cause cognitive/dissonance, which is a bad position to be in.

In other words, no you have not bothered to test your claim that "if my child missed me and someone showed him a picture of me, he would react". I can understand why you have such a hard time admitting that you are making stuff up, but it is a bit of a mystery to me why you keep doing it when you know that people are going to catch you at it and call you on it.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well obviously if the alternate account is different from the original account the phenomenon changes, but what's more important is that this change does not violate the laws of physics. If the phenomenon didn't change (seeing in real time), then there would be nothing to correct.

No, the phenomenon does not change. Only the account changes. You are still getting your direction of causation backward.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There have been conclusions drawn based on certain observations (the moons of Jupiter, etc.) that it must be the time/light delay causing what we're seeing, but "supporting" evidence is not absolute proof.

True, but an absolute lack of supporting evidence is an absolute absence of proof and that is exactly what you have with this so called efferent account of vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I'm not, you idiot. I'm saying that 'absolute proof' is a ridiculous concept to be discussing outside of mathematics. Can't you read?

Well the knowledge he is bringing is based on absolute proof whether you believe it or not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If the light is striking a lens then the light is in motion when it strikes the lens. If the light is in motion then it is traveling either at the speed of light or at some speed less than the speed of light. If the eyes are using the light which is striking the lens in order to see the object, then the eyes cannot be seeing the object instantaneously.

You are not getting it and I am totally spent.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Relativity has been proven over and over again. Your ideas are ruled out by well-tested scientific theories. Apart from that, they don't explain anything.

Special relativity isn't being debated. It is how it is being interpreted. I believe these physicists are describing reality for what it is without having to resort to time dilation and a 4 dimensional world.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Special relativity DOES say that the two travelling clocks both tick at the same rate. It says that they BOTH tick slower than 'stationary' clocks. Of course, 'travelling' and 'stationary' have carefully defined meanings under special relativity - the 'travelling' clocks are the ones that have experienced acceleration in order to provide the relative speed.

But this does not mean that these clocks are measuring a physical dimension of space. They are measuring a mathematical quantity of change. This whole discussion has gotten to be a total witch hunt and as a result I am going to have to bow out.

“The definition of time as a numerical order of change in space is replacing the 106-year-old concept of time as a physical dimension in which change runs,” Sorli said. “We consider time being only a mathematical quantity of change that we measure with clocks. This is in accord with a Gödel view of time. By 1949, Gödel had produced a remarkable proof: 'In any universe described by the theory of relativity, time cannot exist.' Our research confirms Gödel's vision: time is not a physical dimension of space through which one could travel into the past or future.”

Read more at: Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know the difference. An explanandum (a Latin term) is a phenomenon that needs to be explained and its explanans is the explanation of that phenomenon.

Sure, now that you've Googled them you can tell me what the words mean. But that doesn't explain why you were conflating them. Changing an account of a phenomenon doesn't change the phenomenon itself. The phenomenon is the explanandum, and the account is the explanans. Dingbat.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Forget it Spacemonkey. I asked you to explain why you feel the efferent model is implausible (by answering your own questions) and I can agree or not agree, but of course that's not good enough. You want me to be interrogated until I give in. You are trying to use a prosecutor's strategy where the defendant gets cornered and can only answer with yes and no, and then when he thinks he's got you in the palm of his hand he says, "No further questions." Well guess what? There are further questions but they are not going to come from you.

I did explain why the efferent account is implausible, just as I also explained why these questions apply to your account. Yet you are still obstinately and completely unreasonably refusing to even try to answer them. Why is that? Why are honest and direct answers so impossible for you to provide? Is it because you are a hopelessly deluded and dishonest dingbat? Or is there some other reason for your ridiculous evasion?