A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

And all of them more or less crackpots or amateurs. Proving Einstein wrong is classic crackpot territory.

Yeah, bullshit.

Well, people have been accused of being wrong who turned out to be right, but it took hundreds or even thousands of years to correct, so don't think that Lessans is going to be vindicated any time soon. It was the interpretation of Einstein's observations that are being given a critical review, and it doesn't look good. If the reviewers are right, it would indicate that time dilation is a mistaken idea that has taken hold to such an extent that anyone who dares to oppose it is considered a traitor.

“Time dilatation exists not in the sense that time as a fourth dimension of space dilates and as a result the clock rate is slower,” he explained. “Time dilatation simply means that, in a faster inertial system, the velocity of change slows down and this is valid for all observers. GPS confirms that clocks in orbit stations have different rates from the clocks on the surface of the planet, and this difference is valid for observers that are on the orbit station and on the surface of the planet. So interpreted, 'time dilatation' does not require 'length contraction,' which as we show in our paper leads to a contradiction by the light clocks differently positioned in a moving inertial system.”

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

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey peacegirl, you found a live one in John Lear. He appears to be as big a crackpot doofus as your dear old dad. A quick scan of his credentials reveals, among other things, that he thinks holograms and camouflage are being used to disguise life on the moon.

I don't trust your analysis of a person's credibility with a ten foot pole. You cannot judge a person's area of knowledge by a possible oversight. You want to throw all of his observations into one slush pile. You have an agenda David which is to crush anyone who doesn't agree with your worldview. I've seen this firsthand and I know you all too well.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

According to peacegirl, vision does not involve any transmission of information

How can it LadyShea when this entire discussion is on whether light is transmitting information, or whether the function of light is something altogether different; to reveal what exists? In this case there is no transmission of information which is what you are trying to get people to believe. This is a strawman. No one is saying that light is transmitting information before light gets here. You and Spacemonkey keep referring to this false notion and it's completely fallacious.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, tonight I was sitting out watching the full Moon, and I saw 3 airplanes pass over. 2 of them I didn't hear at all, and the other I didn't hear till after I had seen it. sort of proves daddies statement, that we always hear an airplane before we see it, wrong. But I do know his mistake. My house is about 1300 feet from the Norfolk Southern main line and there are several grade crossings close by. We always hear the trains horn as they approach the crossing before we see them, but that could be due to the trees along the line. Daddy Dumb Dumb just got the wrong mode of transportation, another mistake.

Lie lie and more lies. I had to answer this post because it's such a lie, but you're going right back on ignore because I can't stomach your lies. He never said that we always hear an airplane before we see it, so your telling me he is wrong, IS WRONG.

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. If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in the
sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards
the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image
is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply 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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In this particular segment, we were discussing a magnified image, and the efferent vision explanation for magnification. According to optics we are not seeing the real object at all...we are seeing a virtual image made of light when seeing something magnified. This is in contradiction to your statement "We are seeing the real object due to light's presence". So, do you maintain that claim or retract it? Either way, you have yet to explain magnification in the efferent model.

Vague references to "the type of lens" are not explanatory in any way.

LadyShea, you lose, seriously. You are working overtime to discredit Lessans and you will not win because he was right, and one day he will be given credit for being right. Your puny efforts are going to be looked at as someone who had an agenda based on what she thought was true and for that reason was determined to prove Lessans wrong because she was sure he was a crackpot. It's not going to work because he wasn't wrong. Keep trying LadyShea but you will end up with your tail between your legs, not Lessans.

Regardless of which direction we see, light is the conduit so we will not see a true to life image if the light is striking a convex lens. We will get an enlarged version, but it will still be in real time. This does not negate Lessans' claim even a little bit. Go back to your drawing board.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I must disagree with this. According to Peacegirl the brain, looking through the eyes, acquires an image of the object being looked at, and that would constitute a transfer of information from the object to the brain. The problem is that Peacegirl can't explain how the information gets there instantly, which is faster than the speed of light. Peacegirl's model violates the known laws of physics, so there must be some unknown laws of physics that she hasn't shared with us yet.

Peacegirl, if you were to share these unknown laws of physics you could be rich and famous and would have plenty of money to hawk your book. And you would have lots of hangers-on who would agree with whatever you say, as long as you keep spending your money on them.

Would you please shut up for a change? You are the most ignorant person that I've ever encountered on a forum. Seeing the object does not require a transfer of information. It requires seeing the object which has nothing to do with a transfer of information from light.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can it LadyShea when this entire discussion is on whether light is transmitting information, or whether the function of light is something altogether different; to reveal what exists? In this case there is no transmission of information which is what you are trying to get people to believe. This is a strawman.

I am not referring to light in this post, I am talking about whether vision represents a transfer of information, whether efferent or afferent.

In the past, you have argued that we do not gain information at all by seeing. When you see something, do you gain information about it?



That being said, light contains information, and you've agreed that light contains information (intensity, direction, wavelength). In efferent vision is that information gained by our brain when using light to see?

No one is saying that light is transmitting information before light gets here. You and Spacemonkey keep referring to this false notion and it's completely fallacious.

This misrepresents our questions and arguments, so you are the one making a strawman argument. You've said light is located at the eye or camera film before light has had time to travel to that location. Whether light contains information or not (although you've agreed it does) is irrelevant to those questions and points about the location of light photons and the mechanism of the location change.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not being dishonest. If relativity theory is subject to critical review, that's fine. But that's not what is happening. Anyone who has an issue with this theory could be kicked out of school. How dare you call my father a crackpot. What does that make you? You are more focused on your reputation than on actually hearing or considering what my father observed.

Special relativity has probably come under more scrutiny - particularly if you fold in the QFT aspects - than any other scientific theory in history. So as usual, you're making things up. And most people don't even learn about special relativity in school, so I very much doubt you could get kicked out for it.

As for your father: he's a crackpot. Where you got this nonsense about me caring about my reputation is beyond me.

And finally, you are being dishonest. Why do you shift goalposts, or weasel, or change the subject when called on things? Why do you admit you were wrong about something in one post, then post the same misinformation in the next? Why do you make things up constantly? This is why you are called, rightfully, a crackpot.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No it doesn't, not if the speed of light and time is not involved in this account. You are conflating these two versions of vision which is a breach of good science.

I don't know what you think transfer of information is but it's not the same as mine. You don't get to win just because you don't like what I have to say. If I see a candle being lit (even though light is traveling) virtually instantly, and the Sun example is similar to this because distance and time don't play a part in the efferent account, then what science thought they knew about light and sight has to be reevaluated. You won't do this because you feel threatened. I hope people see why you are abrupt and why might does not make right. This is not good science David and people who are analytical will see through this charade.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Efferent vision is the idea you need to explain, it is not an explanation at all.

I have LadyShea and it's no worse in explanation than what science uses to explain afferent vision. Really truly. So much is based on conjecture that to think this issue is a done deal is a joke. I don't care what they say on paper; it's still a theory and all alternate claims have to be taken into account. The fact that you disregard Lessans' claims outright should be lauded as BULLSHIT OF THE YEAR. George Carlin thank you for your wonderful words of wisdom. You tell it like it is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Whose words do you think I've been using, Dingbat? Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? Why does this seem like an interrogation? Is it because I keep repeating my questions? That's only because YOU keep unreasonably refusing to answer them! Idiot! How dare we interrogate you by asking you questions and actually expecting you to answer! How cruel! You poor, poor victim! Do you actually think you should be allowed to ignore and evade pertinent questions with impunity?

I'm done talking to you Spacemonkey. You are a nasty #*$*# and you don't deserve my response. You are disrespectful and pompous. Go back to your day job and leave this thread as promptly as you can.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you lose, seriously. You are working overtime to discredit Lessans and you will not win because he was right, and one day he will be given credit for being right. Your puny efforts are going to be looked at as someone who had an agenda based on what she thought was true and for that reason was determined to prove Lessans wrong because she was sure he was a crackpot. It's not going to work because he wasn't wrong. Keep trying LadyShea but you will end up with your tail between your legs, not Lessans.

Regardless of which direction we see, light is the conduit so we will not see a true to life image if the light is striking a convex lens. We will get an enlarged version, but it will still be in real time. This does not negate Lessans' claim even a little bit. Go back to your drawing board.

Inability and refusal to respond to the question in a reasonable way is noted. You are dishonest, and I wonder if Lessans would have been proud of that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Shut up Spacemonkey. I'm done talking to you. You are a nasty son of a bitch and you don't deserve my response. You are disrespectful and pompous. Go back to being a philosophy instructor and leave this thread as promptly as you can. This thread is just too deep for you.

And you are a dishonest weasel who turns vindictive because she can't make a solid point. You are the nasty bitch.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Inability and refusal to respond to the question in a reasonable way is noted. You are dishonest, and I wonder if Lessans would have been proud of that.

I actually love your response because its ridiculous. Give it up LadyShea. Please go to all the other threads that may rock your boat, but please leave here. You will not win. I promise you. My father would have had a party knowing what I'm going through, so don't play this pity party game on me. You are a sneaky unforgiving all knowing bullshitter.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't trust your analysis of a person's credibility with a ten foot pole. You cannot judge a person's area of knowledge by a possible oversight.

"Possible oversight"?

Hey peacegirl, are holograms and camouflage being used to disguise life on the moon?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't trust your analysis of a person's credibility with a ten foot pole. You cannot judge a person's area of knowledge by a possible oversight. You want to throw all of his observations into one slush pile. You have an agenda David which is to crush anyone who doesn't agree with your worldview. I've seen this firsthand and I know you all too well.

Well maybe you'd be interested in some of the other work by Dr. Amrit Sorli (referenced in the article you keep posting). He claims to have measured the weight of prana, the "life force" Living on Light - Prana Has a Measurable Weight, Dr. Amrit Sorli

I can't find anything saying Amrit Sorli is a physicist, though he has been publishing essays and such for years on a variety of topics. Maybe he is an imaginary physicist the same way Lessans is an imaginary mathematician.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Regardless of which direction we see, light is the conduit so we will not see a true to life image if the light is striking a convex lens. We will get an enlarged version, but it will still be in real time. This does not negate Lessans' claim even a little bit. Go back to your drawing board.

How do you account for a change in the speed of light through the lens if the image is instant? If the effects of light speed hold true inside the lens then they hold true outside the lens and all vision is delayed due to the speed of light. In order to explain how a lens works in efferent vision you have to explain how light is bent without the speed of light (therefore time) being a factor.
Please explain refraction of light without using the speed of light.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have LadyShea and it's no worse in explanation than what science uses to explain afferent vision. Really truly.

Science uses optics to explain afferent vision. Are you saying your dishonest weaseling, and Lessans handful of paragraphs, is equal in explanatory power to an entire branch of physics -representing the work of thousands of scientists- with mountains of data and evidence and detailed explanations of every aspect and factor?

Anyway, you've repeatedly said, optics works the same way in efferent vision, and efferent vision doesn't change optics. Why do you keep saying things like that when you do not believe it to be true?

So much is based on conjecture that to think this issue is a done deal is a joke. I don't care what they say on paper; it's still a theory and all alternate claims have to be taken into account. The fact that you disregard Lessans' claims outright should be lauded as BULLSHIT OF THE YEAR. George Carlin thank you for your wonderful words of wisdom. You tell it like it is.

you are such a Weasel.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I actually love your response because its ridiculous. Give it up LadyShea. Please go to all the other threads that may rock your boat, but please leave here. You will not win. I promise you. My father would have had a party knowing what I'm going through, so don't play this pity party game on me. You are a sneaky unforgiving all knowing bullshitter.

Lessans would have had a party to celebrate you being a liar. His character, according to you, is also noted

[LadyShea]

Before proceeding to our presentation it is imperative that you forget all preconceived notions of what you think you know. Enter here with an open mind and be prepared to be amazed. We do not expect all that enter this portal to be convinced that everything we say is true, but take a moment to examine the evidence we provide, and think on it for a spell. We guarantee that you will never look at the old black and white NASA moon the same way again.
For decades you have been shown that the Moon is a dull lifeless world, in fact organizations like the USGS and NASA have even gone out of their way to keep this myth alive with images like the one below... The Enigmas on the Moon - Intro - Photos Taken in Space

Wow, the similarity in writing style between these guys and Lessans is uncanny. Forget all your preconceived notions and prepare to be amazed! It's like word for word.

No wonder peacegirl adores crackpots, they remind her of Lessans.

[But]

Originally Posted by davidm

ViXra

No shit!

Hey, peacegirl, this is the place for Daddy's book! Submit, submit!

Absolutely! What's missing there is a paper on efferent vision.

Look:

viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1404.0121, Russian Sleep Weapon
viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1407.0120, “Here and Now” as a Virtual High Energy Particle. Mass of the “Here and Now”
viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1406.0126, Rocks and Minerals are Electron Degenerate Matter
viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1406.0082, Numerological Formula for the Mass of the Proton

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know what you think transfer of information is but it's not the same as mine.

It was explained very clearly when he said "The change of the state of the sun from OFF to ON in Lessans' scenario is information by definition".

If you see something, information has been transferred from that object to your brain. Information such as "there is an object" (a 1 rather than a 0), further information transferred via vision are the visual properties of what you are seeing...color, shape, distance, size. The transfer comes from the fact that you are separate from the object you are seeing...information from X is gained by Y.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wow, the similarity in writing style between these guys and Lessans is uncanny. Forget all your preconceived notions and prepare to be amazed! It's like word for word.

No wonder peacegirl adores crackpots, they remind her of Lessans.

Yes, I was going to remark on that very similarity, but forgot. Yup, blowhards, buffoons and crackpots are all the same.

[Stephen Maturin]

viXra.org is awesome! It's like a whale.to just for science!

If anyone needs ideas for Christmas gifts, I want me one of those Russian "rarefied air" generators that make people fall asleep and never wake up.

Let us recall that another of peacegirl's science icons is Louis Savain, who's working on building a Christian AI from coded instructions in the Book of Revelation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans would have had a party to celebrate you being a liar. His character, according to you, is also noted

We know from stories in the Sacred Text that Seymour's mother exhibited sociopathic and narcissistic tendencies, and she clearly passed that on to her chucklehead son.

If I were lucky enough to have loved ones present at the moment of my death -- as Lessans was -- I'd like to think I'd thank them for doing me the honor of letting me be part of their lives, and tell them how my better life has been with them than it would have been without them.

And what did Lessans tell his family? "My day will come." Not a golden age of peace and prosperity, not a new world, but "my day." He may as well have said, "Thanks for attending my final hours, folks. Here's a big juicy shitburger for each of you." What a knob.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

viXra.org is awesome! It's like a whale.to just for science!

If anyone needs ideas for Christmas gifts, I want me one of those Russian "rarefied air" generators that make people fall asleep and never wake up.

From the abstract of this four (!) page paper:

Thus, by using this sleep weapon it is possible to exterminate millions people in less than one hour.

In less than one hour? How much less? Clearly, this is delayed-time extermination by Russian rarefied air generators! Thus, it is plain that these are afferent generators! How lame is that? What we need are efferent Russian rarefied air generators that exterminate by enforced sleep instantaneously, such that time and distance are not factors in the efferent account of Russian rarefied air generation!

Peacegirl, please contact this person immediately about Lessans' book.