A revolution in thought

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

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!

show spoiler

show spoiler

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Efferent vision is not 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.

^^^THIS^^^

A thousand times over.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

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.

I don't think you read the report I posted. These are carefully constructed criticisms.

Louis Essen points out that the Lorentz length contraction factor is an arbitrary assumption. He remarks that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. Essen concludes;
"The so-called theory of special relativity is thus not a theory at all but simply a number of assumptions and the assumptions made implicitly in the course of thought experiments contradict those made initially."
G. Burniston Brown indicates that many physicists feel that the theory of relativity is not a genuine physical theory.
Pari summarizes;
"There is no direct experimental proof of the assumptions made by Einstein to postulate the relativity theory, the special or the general. Plausible alternative explanations can be offered for all laboratory and astronomical observations cited in support of the theory."
Einstein's equations of relativistic dynamics are mathematically incompatible with the experimentally verified Plank's formula of quantum mechanics. These problems, as well as the concept of "negative mass" in relativity and Einstein's postulates of "longitudinal mass" and "transverse mass" are all hypothetical concepts with no experimentally provable or other basis in science.
Pari then points out that many physicists who believe that Einstein's theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may 'spoil their career prospects,' if they openly opposed Einstein's relativity. Louis Essen cautions;

"The continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory"
He is concerned that;
"students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma."
Pari also points out that "In deriving the field equations of general relativity, Einstein has used partial differential equations, which assume continuity of a uniform field or of the spacetime continuum. A mathematical law expressing a regularity in the successive distances of the orbiting Louis Essen cautions;

"The continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory"
He is concerned that;
"students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma."
Pari also points out that "In deriving the field equations of general relativity, Einstein has used partial differential equations, which assume continuity of a uniform field or of the spacetime continuum. A mathematical law expressing a regularity in the successive distances of the orbiting bodies around a central primary would be inconsistent with the assumptions of general relativity. And this regularity exists in the form of the Titius-Bode law from which Pari also concludes that the distance law is an integral part of gravitation; i.e. gravitation is quantized.
In a series of articles, A.A.Logunov and co-workers have made several important remarks. They point out that in general relativity the energy of a system and, therefore, its inertial mass does not have any physical meaning, since it depends on the arbitrary choice of the coordinate systems. Therefore, the assertion of equality of the "inertial" and "gravitational" masses in Einstein's theory is devoid of all physical meaning.
Moreover, the arbitrariness of the coordinate transformations in general relativity makes it incapable of giving unique predictions for gravitational effects (bending of light, perihelion rotation, red shift and time-delay experiments.) They conclude that the absence in the general theory of relativity of conservation laws for energy, momentum, and angular momentum of the matter and gravitational field taken together, and also its inability to give unique predictions for gravitational phenomena, make it necessary to abandon the theory of relativity as a physical theory.

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_...xer_Rev_10.htm

Originally Posted by Dragar

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.

You're wrong. You can come to whatever conclusion you want, but this is never going to stop these discoveries from eventually coming to light.

“crackpots” who were right: the conclusion
August 28, 2010

I have been posting a blog series about scientists who were called “crackpots” but eventually turned out to be right. There is a convenient archive of the posts under the tag crackpots-who-were-right in case you missed any of these fascinating stories. I could carry on the series forever, but I want to do other things so I’m going to conclude it with this last post.

If I had continued I would have gone on to tell you about Barry Marshall who got the Nobel Prize after showing that stomach ulcers are caused by a bacterium rather than stress as everyone believed. He found it so difficult to convince anyone that he eventually drank a petri dish of the bacteria to prove it. I also wanted write a bit about Robert Chambers who wrote a popular book about evolution before Darwin. He was ridiculed by biologists for his misuse of terminology but the public were won over and he paved the way for acceptance of Darwin’s theory while much of the scientific establishment held on to creationism. I also never got round to the famous case of Hannes Alfvén another Nobel laureate who faced ridicule when he realised that plasmas and magnetic and electric fields are important in galactic physics, not just gravity as everyone else believed. Nor have I mentioned Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar who showed that stars above a certain size would eventually collapse to form black holes at a time when others did not believe they could really exist. The lambasting he got from Eddington almost ended his brilliant career. Then there was Joseph Goldberger who showed that Pellagra is a disease caused by dietary deficiency but for political reasons his opponents continued to claim it was infectious. Others on my list are William Harvey for blood circulation, Doppler for light frequency shifts, Peyton Rous for showing viruses can cause cancer, Boltzmann, Dalton, Tesla, Alverez, Margulis, Krebs, and on and on. All of them had to fight against resistance before their ground breaking work gained the recognition it deserved.

But so what? What can we draw from this? Some people have commented that these people were not real crackpots. They worked as real scientists and had ideas that just took time to establish. They are not like the people who turn up in physics and maths forums with crazy ideas that have no respect for hundreds of years of progress ins science. Furthermore, our “crackpots”-who-were-right are a tiny minority compared to all the ones who were wrong.

I disagree with these points. Firstly, these people really were treated as crazy and were subjected to ridicule or were ignored. The cases described here are the extremes. There are many more who have merely had an important paper rejected. In fact it is hard to know the real extent of the problem because only the most important stories get told in the history of science. My guess is that these people represent the tip of a large iceberg most of which lies hidden below the threshold it takes for historians to take note.

Furthermore, even if the “crackpots” who were right are the minority among all “crackpots”, they are still the most significant part. It is better to create an environment in which these people can have their theories recorded for the sake of the few who are right, than to try to dispel them all because of some irrational fear that they disrupt real science.

And, even amongst those who have really crazy ideas there will be the people like Ohm who also have some valid ideas hidden underneath. No amount of peer-review or archive moderation can reliably separate the good ideas from the bad. The only solution is to allow everyone to have their say and to record it in a permanent accessible form. Some people ask me why I expect scientists to wade through so many papers looking for something they find worthwhile. The answer is I don’t. Work of no value will be ignored while useful ideas will be found by someone doing related research who finds it through keyword searches or other means. Even in the academically run archives there are vast numbers of papers that will never be cited or read by many people. Scientists find out about new ideas through citations, seminars, conferences, word or mouth, etc.

I hope that some people at least will read this series and get the point about why we run the viXra archive with an open policy that allows any work on scientific topic to be recorded. I can’t say that some future Nobel Prize winner will be among our deposits, but it is not impossible. More likely there will be lots of smaller good ideas that move science along in less dramatic steps, but that is the way most science is done.

crackpots who were right | viXra log

[davidm]

Too bad, we do not have a Richard Pryor smilie.

This makes it impossible for me to satirize the classic Chevey Chase/Richard Pryor job interview "word association" skit with peacegirl as the interviewer and Pryor being interviewed for a position as an astrophysicist.

[peacegirl]

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

Of course we gain information by seeing but if the function of light is to reveal, the statement that relativity forbids any transmission of information faster than the speed of light doesn't even apply because time is not a factor.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

Yes, but once again this doesn't apply since you are not comparing apples to apples. Moreover, the theory of relativity has recently come under scrutiny, so your basic premise may be faulty as well.

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

That is not what I said. That is what you said. If what we are seeing is a mirror image it would take virtually no time to get there and it certainly wouldn't be relative to distance.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

I've answered this so many times I've lost count. Why you aren't listening, I have no idea. But these observations remain valid.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think you read the report I posted. These are carefully constructed criticisms.

How would you know, asshat?

And, no, they're not. They're stupid.

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you I don't like the interrogation. If you can't explain what you mean in your own words, then forget it.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Janis.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Back to your lack of reading comprehension, I did not say that the brain received information from light, I said the brain received an image of the object from the object itself. And however much you protest, that is a transfer of information from the object to the brain, what is the image, if not information? Or do you now have some idiosyncratic definition of "information" and "image"?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think you read the report I posted. These are carefully constructed criticisms.

You're an idiot. You are linking a page from the "Pegasus Research Consortium". Your new crackpot hero thinks the Moon has life on it, and there's an international conspiracy covering it up.

What is wrong with you?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If what we are seeing is based on a mirror image it takes virtually no time to get there, which is your big peeve.

And that is what is impossible, virtual or otherwise. There is no way any image can get from one location to another instantly, and Instantly was your's and Lessans original claim.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think you read the report I posted. These are carefully constructed criticisms.

[I]Louis Essen points out that the Lorentz length contraction factor is an arbitrary assumption. He remarks that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. Essen concludes;
[B]"The so-called theory of special relativity is thus not a theory at all but simply a number of assumptions and the assumptions made implicitly in the course of thought experiments contradict those made initially."

I wonder if you'll ever get a clue about how stupid and dishonest you look (well, ARE) when you pull shit like this. You have NO CLUE what "the Lorentz length contraction" is, DO YOU? Or anything else about SR. So how can you possibly evaluate, honestly, this so-called "criticism"?

Length contraction is NOT an assumption of SR, it's a consequence of it, just like time dilation, and it's observed to happen.

SR has only two postulates, or assumptions, both of which are verified by experience: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames (this goes back to Galileo, for christ sake) and the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all in inertial frames. Length contraction is NOT an assumption of the theory! The person who wrote that is an idiot, and so are you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

You aren't in the position to judge Lessans. You divide people up into groups; those who are worthy of being heard and those who aren't based on all kinds of faulty standards. If Lessans was a distinguished professor, you would back off. You are such a hypocrite.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

No, I'm upset because of the false spin everyone has created which is not hard to do in this kind of venue.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not what I said. That is what you said. If what we are seeing is a mirror image it would take virtually no time to get there and it certainly wouldn't be relative to distance.

What is the mirror image made of, how is it created?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You aren't in the position to judge Lessans. You divide people up into groups; those who are worthy of being heard and those who aren't based on all kinds of faulty standards. If Lessans was a distinguished professor, you would back off. You are such a hypocrite.

Nope, we judge his ideas based on his ideas, and they're wrong. You are a dishonest coward who cannot admit this truth.

Remember when we took your father's ideas on light and sight to Phil Plait's astronomy forum? You wouldn't even look at the thread!

Nobody there knew anything about Lessans or his credentials. But they instantly correctly identified all the wrong things in his garbage, the exact same wrong things we have been pointing out to you.

Go take your father's rubbish to any scientist or science forum or university, and don't tell them anything about Lessans. In fact, if you'd like, lie (which you're so good at anyway) and tell them he was a distinguished physicist! And see what they say.

They'll say: "His credentials notwithstanding, this is utter rubbish for the following reasons…"

Want us to start another thread at Plait's forum and identify Lessans as a distinguished professor? Hmmm?

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

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.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

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.

You're still not getting it. Just think in terms of a mirror image. How fast does it take for an image to show up on a reflective surface? Well this image is exactly what is at the retina when we see an object. Yes, light and its properties are necessary for sight and will work exactly the same way as it is known to work, but the speed of light is not applicable because there is virtually no travel time.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[ Just think in terms of a mirror image. How fast does it take for an image to show up on a reflective surface?

Images don't "show up on a reflective surface," fuckwit. They "show up" in the brain. And that image cannot do so until the light strikes the mirror and returns to the eye. Thus even a mirror image of one's self a short distance across the room, is an image from the past.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How fast [sic] does it take for an image to show up [sic] on a reflective surface?

Assuming what you really mean is 'how long before we see it in the mirror?' that's an easy one. Measure the total distance from the object to the eye (or camera) via the mirror. Divide by the speed of light.

Example: a light is 20 metres from a mirror; you are 10 metres from the mirror and roughly in line with the light, so that you can see the light in the mirror when the light is switched on. The light is switched on at midnight. How long till you see it?

Answer: the light has to travel a total of 30 metres before it reaches your eye. Light travels roughly 300,000,000 metres per second through air so it will be 0.0000001 seconds before you see it. That is 100 nanoseconds.

[Artemis Entreri]

If time isn't a factor then the standard explanation for refraction doesn't hold. If time is not a factor and the altered image is created instantly then it could not be effected by the speed of light passing through a lens, as optics and afferent vision says. Yet we know what the effects of lens are, how can these effects be explained in efferent vision?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

My father gave credit where it was due. He didn't take anything away from anyone, but if something is wrong with a basic assumption, then the whole kit and caboodle needs to be reanalyzed. Naming the parts of the eye and what each part does is very enlightening, but the danger here is taking these observations and coming to conclusions about how the eyes work in conjunction with the brain that has not been conclusively established. This is open territory and all of the data gathered thus far does not prove delayed time seeing. Supporting evidence can also contain confirmation bias especially when the basic premise (that the eyes are a sense organ) is no longer thought to be a theory.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

Optics does work the same way, and we do get information from the properties of light. The only difference is whether we create the image from light, or we see the real object from light. This does not change GPS systems or the slight correction due to the difference in clock time.

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

you are such a Weasel.

I'm really not. I'm just asking you to delay your premature judgments which you have a hard time doing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

He taught me good character. If I purposely lied (which is a redundancy since lying implies an intent to deceive), he wouldn't have liked that but he would have tried to understand what motivated me to lie. I'm sure he would have liked that I stood up for his work which is more important than you will ever know.

[peacegirl]

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.

Maybe this is just how genius's talk.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

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

I am not going to make any submissions because it will be associated with crackpottery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

Right, but there is a presumption that we are getting information through the speed of light and nothing travels faster than this. I'm sorry but it doesn't even apply. You're just grasping at straws.