Since the way your talking indicates you don't know yet what time dilation even is, I will say again, Time Dilation does NOT refer to time being a material substance that physically bends!
So how can we have a different "now" LadyShea on a timeline that doesn't exist? You are the expert so go ahead. Explain this so I can get it.
"Have a different now" in what way? What silly strawman have you created as my argument?
So explain again what you were saying? The past, present, and future are not different states of being.
The state of everything that exists changes from moment to moment.
Who is disputing that LadyShea. Now you are the big
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The Earth is spinning as well as orbiting. Organic cells are metabolizing and dying. Things are decaying. Now and now represent different states.
Processes can be occurring simultaneously but they are in the process of unfolding NOW. Cells do not metabolize and die yesterday, and the Earth doesn't spin or rotate tomorrow. They are doing these things right now. You still don't get it, do you? I don't think you want to get it because that would mean you agree with Lessans.
Difference between clocks doesn't prove that time slows down.
That's the definition of it, you idiot.
Definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned Dragar. You should know that by now.
Quote:
I don't think it's metaphorical. If they say that time is relative, then according to them if we were traveling at different inertial speeds, theoretically I could end end up living to 200 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Only according to someone else's clock.
Not if time does not actually slow down.
Since a time axis does not exist, there is only one way to look at time. It is an abstract parameter derived from change. When we use a clock, we may fool ourselves into thinking that we are measuring something physical that we call time, but what we are doing is detecting change.
You'd understand that if you tried to learn about relativity from a textbook rather than a crackpot's personal webpage.
But that's too much like hard work, isn't it? Actually learning something for once?
I don't go by your labels. All you are doing is compartmentalizing so you don't have to pay attention to anyone who disagrees with you. Many discoverers were called crackpots that turned out to be true discoverers. I don't think Louis Savain is a crackpot just because his thoughts are different than yours. Textbooks contain material that is thought to be true according to present day thinking. Textbooks get rewritten all the time, as new information comes in.
Yes, peacegirl, no one understands how light can be at the eye without getting there!
Including you, of course.
You have absolutely no understanding of the efferent account which creates a mirror image that is exactly proportional in size to what is seen. It is not distance driven and it does not require light to travel to Earth first. Let's not get into this again!
I am aware of that, but I read ch 10 when it was posted as part of a book review, but I didn't down load it. Probably should have, and deleted the rest of the review.
You cannot read this chapter once and think you got it. These are difficult concepts that take time to grasp.
Yes, peacegirl, no one understands how light can be at the eye without getting there!
Including you, of course.
You have absolutely no understanding of the efferent account which creates a mirror image that is exactly proportional in size to what is seen. It is not distance driven and it does not require light to travel to Earth first. Let's not get into this again!
The efferent account isn't a cause. It's just a name for Lessans's idea of vision. It can't create a mirror image. What actually created the mirror image? What makes up the image? Is it light? if so then how did it get there?
__________________
Why am I naked and sticky?... Did I miss something fun?
These cells are sometimes said to be immortal because they are the link between generations.
You do realize, do you not, that when people talk about the "immortality" of germ cells, that is meant in a metaphorical sense, not a literal sense. And it's not even a good metaphor, because spermatozoa and ova are not immortal in any sense. It's the genes that are "immortal," not the germ cells.
In any event, neither spermatozoa nor ova are actually immortal. And genes are not directly passed from generation to generation -- rather, copies are passed from generation to generation. In fact, it's very likely that none of the cells that currently make up your body contain any of the original DNA that was present in the spermatozoan from your father and the ovum from your mother that united at the moment of your conception. And the probability is essentially 100% that none of the cells in your body contain any "original DNA" inherited from any of your grandparents.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
Yes, peacegirl, no one understands how light can be at the eye without getting there!
Including you, of course.
You have absolutely no understanding of the efferent account which creates a mirror image that is exactly proportional in size to what is seen. It is not distance driven and it does not require light to travel to Earth first. Let's not get into this again!
The efferent account isn't a cause. It's just a name for Lessans's idea of vision. It can't create a mirror image. What actually created the mirror image? What makes up the image? Is it light? if so then how did it get there?
Last time: This has nothing to do with getting there. If the objects in one's visual landscape are bright enough and large enough to be seen, then that light will have created an instant mirror image at the eye or film. This is the opposite of the afferent account which claims that light travels through space and time, strikes the retina or film which then gets decoded into an image. If my father was right, the function of light is to reveal the external world not bring the world to us in the light, so how could the afferent account be correct? This is just as plausible as the afferent model.
These cells are sometimes said to be immortal because they are the link between generations.
You do realize, do you not, that when people talk about the "immortality" of germ cells, that is meant in a metaphorical sense, not a literal sense. And it's not even a good metaphor, because spermatozoa and ova are not immortal in any sense. It's the genes that are "immortal," not the germ cells.
I know that germ cells die so we're not talking literal here, but what I got out of this is that these germs cells do provide the link that connects one generation to another. Without these germ cells (which my father called "germinal substance") which form the gonads, the circle of life would not continue on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
In any event, neither spermatozoa nor ova are actually immortal. And genes are not directly passed from generation to generation -- rather, copies are passed from generation to generation. In fact, it's very likely that none of the cells that currently make up your body contain any of the original DNA that was present in the spermatozoan from your father and the ovum from your mother that united at the moment of your conception. And the probability is essentially 100% that none of the cells in your body contain any "original DNA" inherited from any of your grandparents.
I agree with you. This is a simple misunderstanding. I think what they were saying is that these germ cells are the only cells that are the link between generations, for without these unique cells new life from one generation to another could not occur. They are different from other cells in this respect.
Last time: This has nothing to do with getting there.
But that's what we're asking, how is it there? If it doesn't "get there" then it must be created there, if so how is it created? What is this image made of?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If the objects in one's visual landscape are bright enough and large enough to be seen, then that light will have created an instant mirror image at the eye or film.
How does the light instantly create an image in a location when it hasn't had time to travel to that location? If the light creating the image IS at the eye, where did it come from and how did it get there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If my father was right, the function of light is to reveal the external world not bring the world to us in the light, so how could the afferent account be correct? This is just as plausible as the afferent model.
And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass when it hopped. The afferent account could be right because your father could be wrong. In fact there are extensive amounts of evidence that indicates the afferent account IS right and that Lessans IS wrong, but there is exactly zero evidence that indicates that he is right. I think that makes Lessans account a lot less plausible.
__________________
Why am I naked and sticky?... Did I miss something fun?
Last time: This has nothing to do with getting there.
But that's what we're asking, how is it there? If it doesn't "get there" then it must be created there, if so how is it created? What is this image made of?
Nonabsorbed photons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If the objects in one's visual landscape are bright enough and large enough to be seen, then that light will have created an instant mirror image at the eye or film.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri
How does the light instantly create an image in a location when it hasn't had time to travel to that location? If the light creating the image IS at the eye, where did it come from and how did it get there?
Again, I say due to the direction the eyes see. This really has nothing to do with the changes in light. Light from a past event will be seen when it reaches us, but events that are present will be seen in the present. I can only explain this metaphorically. If you are standing on one side of a box and the Sun is on the other, you will see it if that light is luminous enough to be at the other side where you happen to be standing. The distance (although far) isn't what matters. What matters is the proportion (or size of the object) relative to the viewer, therefore the light would be at my retina instantly as long as the Sun meets the requirements. Think about a candle again. We light it at 12 noon and we see it at 12 noon because it meets the conditions of size and brightness relative to the viewer. This is the same amount of time it would take to see the Sun first turned on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If my father was right, the function of light is to reveal the external world not bring the world to us in the light, so how could the afferent account be correct? This is just as plausible as the afferent model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri
And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass when it hopped. The afferent account could be right because your father could be wrong. In fact there are extensive amounts of evidence that indicates the afferent account IS right and that Lessans IS wrong, but there is exactly zero evidence that indicates that he is right. I think that makes Lessans account a lot less plausible.
You need to take into consideration that this alternate model is new to you, and the afferent account is taken for granted to be correct. This does add some bias which you need to keep at bay or else you won't want to understand why he came to this conclusion.
Germ cells do not "form the gonads." They are made by the gonads.
Here it says they migrate to the developing gonads.
Primordial Germ Cells and Sex Determination in Mammals
Sexual reproductive strategies can vary enormously between different organisms. In the rest of this chapter, we focus mainly on the strategies used by mammals.
In all vertebrate embryos, certain cells are singled out early in development as progenitors of the gametes. These primordial germ cells migrate to the developing gonads, which will form the ovaries in females and the testes in males. After a period of mitotic proliferation, the primordial germ cells undergo meiosis and differentiate into mature gametes—either eggs or sperm. Later, the fusion of egg and sperm after mating initiates embryogenesis. The subsequent production in this embryo of new primordial germ cells begins the cycle again.
But that's what we're asking, how is it there? If it doesn't "get there" then it must be created there, if so how is it created? What is this image made of?
Nonabsorbed photons.
Are you saying the photons that make up the "mirror image" appear at the retina the instant you are looking at the object?
Of course "Thou Shall Not Blame" has to be applied before something is done because this is what creates a new set of antecedent conditions that force a change in behavior.
Exactamundo.
What do you mean by that?
Oofa. I was just expressing my agreement with your statement regarding the role of "Thou Shalt Not Blame" in Lessans' view.
So what's your disagreement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
You don't know what "exactamundo" means? Must be strange being the savior of all humankind yet dumb as dog shit. The 100% nonreligious God does indeed move in mysterious ways.
I know what it means. I don't see where you were agreeing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
The advent of the Golden Age depends upon knowledge of a proposition that Lessans himself said was false. You can't know something that's false.
What proposition that the Golden Age is dependent on that Lessans said is false?
Asked and answered. We've actually been down this road twice, and there's no way in hell you're goading me into a third go-round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You're the one that made a quick determination that he was wrong based on my explanation, and you never delved deeper or asked any more questions.
Again, you're wrong. I made the determination after reading what Lessans wrote. Your clumsy attempts at explanation only served to reinforce the initial determination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You suddenly decided he was wrong and quit posting until you became your mean spirited self again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Incorrect, as always. I decided that the "two-sided equation" () lacked any transformative force as soon as I read the relevant parts of the book. I posted here to give you the opportunity to show me I was wrong. As will everything else, you failed.
Failed what?
I'd need to take a couple of weeks vacation time and spend every waking moment typing to get that question answered thoroughly. Ain't doin' that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
The record will reflect that your last post to me on the subject ended with "to be continued." Naturally, the promised continuation of that response never materialized. You quietly scurried away from the discussion like a cockroach running from the light.
Show me where I said "to be continued" and never came back.
Take a look at #31877 and its ugly misformatted stepchild, #31878.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you scroll back you will see that you were the one that left, not me.
As always, you're wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Utterly bereft of truth. I've asked you dozens of serious questions and gotten substantially fewer than dozens straight answers. You're not a serious person, and any attempts to engage you in serious discussion are doomed before they begin.
You won't take the time to truly listen so that you can understand.
Your father believed that disagreement with his claims could only be based on lack of understanding. He was wrong about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
From day one you've been interested in arguing because you don't believe it's possible that we can actually achieve peace.
Could you hustle it up on the world peace thing, please? When human civilization devolves as the oil dries up with increasing rapidity, the resulting wars are gonna make WWII look like a tiptoe through the tulips.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
But that's what we're asking, how is it there? If it doesn't "get there" then it must be created there, if so how is it created? What is this image made of?
Nonabsorbed photons.
Are you saying the photons that make up the "mirror image" appear at the retina the instant you are looking at the object?
I say that the size of the object relative to the viewer causes us to be within optical range instantly. Although we're not denying distance, it is not the mechanism in this account, therefore the photons would already be at the retina because it's proportional. A tiny candle in a small room would be seen instantly due to the size and brightness of the candle relative to the viewer. If the Sun were the size of a candle relative to the viewer, we obviously wouldn't see it because it wouldn't be bright enough or large enough, but because the Sun is huge, this light would be at the retina as a mirror image. But this can only occur in the efferent account where the eyes are the window to the real world, not where light is interpreted in the brain as an image. It wouldn't make sense based on the afferent account of vision.
But that's what we're asking, how is it there? If it doesn't "get there" then it must be created there, if so how is it created? What is this image made of?
Nonabsorbed photons.
Are you saying the photons that make up the "mirror image" appear at the retina the instant you are looking at the object?
I say that the size of the object relative to the viewer causes us to be within optical range instantly. Although we're not denying distance, it is not the mechanism in this account, therefore the photons would already be at the retina because it's proportional. A tiny candle in a small room would be seen instantly due to the the size and brightness of the candle relative to the viewer. If the Sun was the size of a candle relative to the viewer, we obviously wouldn't see it it wouldn't be bright enough), but because the Sun is huge, this light would be at the retina as a mirror image but only if Lessans is right and the brain is looking through the eyes as a window, which causes this phenomenon. It wouldn't make sense based on the afferent account of vision.
Yes or no? Do the photons that make up the "mirror image" appear at the retina the instant you are looking at the object?
The man's writing is a product of his thinking, and Lessans writing is very confused.
I was talking about Chapter Ten.
Chapter 10 is just as confused as the rest of the book.
You blather way too much which is probably why you're confused. If you spent as much time studying the book as you do criticizing the book, you may just learn something.
But that's what we're asking, how is it there? If it doesn't "get there" then it must be created there, if so how is it created? What is this image made of?
Nonabsorbed photons.
Are you saying the photons that make up the "mirror image" appear at the retina the instant you are looking at the object?
I say that the size of the object relative to the viewer causes us to be within optical range instantly. Although we're not denying distance, it is not the mechanism in this account, therefore the photons would already be at the retina because it's proportional. A tiny candle in a small room would be seen instantly due to the the size and brightness of the candle relative to the viewer. If the Sun was the size of a candle relative to the viewer, we obviously wouldn't see it it wouldn't be bright enough), but because the Sun is huge, this light would be at the retina as a mirror image but only if Lessans is right and the brain is looking through the eyes as a window, which causes this phenomenon. It wouldn't make sense based on the afferent account of vision.
Yes or no? Do the photons that make up the "mirror image" appear at the retina the instant you are looking at the object?
Again, think of the candle. It would be that fast. If you don't want to call that instant, that's fine. It would not take 81/2 minutes.
lol Damn, I leave for a few days and we're back to human consciousness flowing through history on a river of jizz. 100% nonreligious God bless the Germinal World of Potential Consciousness, which is a really and truly real place.
I wonder if those of us who had the good sense not to procreate get Lessantonian immortality.
Nah, I don't really wonder that.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
Germ cells do not "form the gonads." They are made by the gonads.
Here it says they migrate to the developing gonads.
Incorrect. Did you not read what you quoted? Early in development, the cells that will ultimately differentiate to form the germ cells as they undergo meiosis migrate into the tissues that will ultimately form the gonads. Germ cells do not migrate into the gonads; they're formed in the gonads.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
And on a related note, how long does "the present" last? Since the present is the only reality per Lessans, the answer will determine whether or not anything can ever exist at all.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
Re: A revolution in thought
) lacked any transformative force as soon as I read the relevant parts of the book. I posted here to give you the opportunity to show me I was wrong. As will everything else, you failed.
OK, dum-dum.
Linear Mode
