A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Real time vision contradicts relativity of simultaneity, which means relativity isn't right. But we know it is, from a huge swathe of successful technology. So yes, real time vision sure does negate our working technology.

Also: do you think it's sane for an educated adult to believe pi = 4?

No Dragar, successful technology (i.e., GPS systems) does not necessarily depend on time dilation. Again, the predictions may be right and corrected for, but to conclude that it's due to relativity of simultaneity is a theory. Stop turning this into an established fact. I am really not sure why these two propositions would necessarily conflict. Do you even know what Lessans' reasoning was? It's real easy to dismiss something without being absolutely sure. This seems to be what is occurring in here.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The interesting thing is that real time vision does not negate technology. Light still travels at 186,000 miles a second and we can use this knowledge to measure distance, and even make slight corrections with GPS. Everything that now works would continue to work under this model. What is gained is a new understanding of ourselves in relation to the external world which changes the way we see ourselves.

Real time vision does contradict all the technology based on relativity. Technology that works. Relativity states that nothing travels faster than the speed of light, not even information. So for real time vision to be true the information that you claim is instantly at the eye, would need to travel faster than light, it needs to be from the object to the eye instantly over the distance from the object to the eye. The distance exists and you can't hand wave it away just because it contradicts real time vision. Until you can provide an explanation of how that information can get from the object to the eye instantly, real time vision, efferent vision, will remain an unproven and untenable theory.

Even if real time vision were true, we would gain no new understanding of ourselves, everything claimed as a result of real time vision has already been explained by psychology and afferent vision.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because his observations are where I start. I am not going to accept a time dimension when he observed that all we have is the ever-changing present. If there's a conflict between special relativity and his observations (regardless of the equations that seem to prove SR correct), I am betting on him.

Why? What has your father ever practically done for us? Did he make successful predictions? Some technology that works? Some useful equations we rely on? Anything?

Because it sure seems like his "work" was a big waste of time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you have any examples from people who know what they're talking about? For instance, people who don't think pi = 4?

I've already answered you. Have you read anything else he's written, or are you basing your judgment on this one thing?

Really? What did you answer? Yes or no?

Do you want me to go look at what else he's written? His utter failure at calculus, his gross misunderstanding Rayleigh scattering, his hilarious "falsification" of Newton's Law of Gravity?

And those are just the ones where I think even you can grasp the mathematics. The rest of of his idiotic ramblings are even worse to anyone who's had a cursory education in science.

But you're cool with that, because you like some of the things he says. And you don't give a damn about evidence or the real world - a random website with some deranged scribblings is fine if it's what you want it to say.

Such foul behaviour from you.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Dragar, successful technology (i.e., GPS systems) does not necessarily depend on time dilation. Again, the predictions may be right and corrected for, but to conclude that it's due to relativity of simultaneity is a theory.

No, peacegirl. Relativity of simultaneity is a necessary consequence of relativity theory. Realtime seeing is incompatible with relativity of simultaneity, therefore realtime seeing is incompatible with relativity.

You can claim realtime seeing, or you can claim relativity theory (and it's wildly successful predictions). But you can't have both. Pick one.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Have you read anything else he's written, or are you basing your judgment on this one thing?

That's rich Peacegirl, You are criticizing Dragar because you believe he is dismissing Mathis for one thing that Dragar thinks he said, yet you are basing all your beliefs on the one idea that everything your father wrote was correct.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Real time vision does contradict all the technology based on relativity. Technology that works. Relativity states that nothing travels faster than the speed of light, not even information. So for real time vision to be true the information that you claim is instantly at the eye, would need to travel faster than light, it needs to be from the object to the eye instantly over the distance from the object to the eye. The distance exists and you can't hand wave it away just because it contradicts real time vision. Until you can provide an explanation of how that information can get from the object to the eye instantly, real time vision, efferent vision, will remain an unproven and untenable theory.

Even if real time vision were true, we would gain no new understanding of ourselves, everything claimed as a result of real time vision has already been explained by psychology and afferent vision.

You are nothing but an imposter posing as if you understand this knowledge. What a joke.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Because his observations are where I start. I am not going to accept a time dimension when he observed that all we have is the ever-changing present. If there's a conflict between special relativity and his observations (regardless of the equations that seem to prove SR correct), I am betting on him.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Why? What has your father ever practically done for us? Did he make successful predictions? Some technology that works? Some useful equations we rely on? Anything?

Because it sure seems like his "work" was a big waste of time.

I am dumbfounded. I asked you what his first discovery was. You didn't answer. Do you even know? If you don't know how can you say his work is a "big waste of time" when this knowledge has the power to prevent war and crime on a global scale. You have jumped to a premature conclusion which is the very thing he urged people not to do.

I don't believe time is a dimension. If this is true (which I believe it is regardless of the opinions to the contrary) then there is no timeline of past and future where we would come back younger than our contemporaries.

Originally Posted by Dragar

But you don't just mean 'opinions' to the contrary; you mean evidence. So tell me why GR works and predicts the correct results, if it's founded on the wrong premises? Cosmic coincidence? International conspiracy?

I never disputed that GR predicts the correct results. No cosmic coincidence, no international conspiracy.

Here is a brief discussion of the justification for my views regarding Einstein’s special relativity. The main fallacy of special relativity is that Einstein makes claims that are not empirically justified. In the case of the velocity of light he made a hasty judgement based on the Michelson-Morely experiment. In the case of the relativity principle he made an unjustified expansion of the relativity principle to electromagnetism. In both cases the empirical facts were not so overwhelming as to justify the metaphysical claims he tried to implement in his postulates. It is for this reason that his theory is false. He didn’t have real solid empirical evidence to justify his claims and this was not proper scientific method. Essentially his so called “postulates” were based upon metaphysical speculations and not upon valid well tested empirical factual information.

The Michelson-Gale and Sagnac experiments have definitely undercut his claims for the light velocity postulate, and it is unlikely it would have been accepted if these experiments and been done prior to 1905. The current evidence, in particular the evidence regarding electromagnetic induction, argues against extending the relativity postulate to include electromagnetism. The GPS system definitely proves that the fundamental claims of relativity regarding the relativity of time simultaneity and constancy of light velocity are false. No one knowing the current empirical facts as we now know them would except his postulates if they were proposed as new ideas today.

Then there is the problem that the relativity theory is mathematically defective. This shows up in the numerous paradoxes, which arise from the incorrect relativity postulate. These can not be resolved in any physically meaningful way. The theory deals with them by invoking absurd excuses. The bottom line is that you can not solve the equations of relativity for any case other than a relative velocity of v=0. That means the theory is not applicable to any physical problem of relative motion.

http://www.kritik-relativitaetstheor...al-relativity/

Originally Posted by Dragar

What does this have to do with my question? I asked why it gives the right results, given you are saying it's wrong?

There are different interpretations as to why it gives the right results. It is taken for granted the SR and GR are the final word.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Do you have any examples from people who know what they're talking about? For instance, people who don't think pi = 4?

Did you read what Mathis said in his introduction? He gave a stipulation which may still prove him wrong, but you have to read his reasoning before throwing him out. You haven't done that because you have already jumped to a premature conclusion (you seem to do that a lot) that he is a crackpot.

First posted September 9, 2008
Abstract: I show that in kinematic situations, π is 4. For all those going ballistic over my title, I repeat and stress that this paper applies to kinematic situations, not to static situations. I am analyzing an orbit, which is caused by motion and includes the time variable. In that situation, π becomes 4. When measuring your waistline, you are not creating an orbit, and you can keep π for that. So quit writing me nasty, uninformed letters.

I've already answered you. Have you read anything else he's written, or are you basing your judgment on this one thing?

Originally Posted by Dragar

Really? What did you answer? Yes or no?

Do you want me to go look at what else he's written? His utter failure at calculus, his gross misunderstanding Rayleigh scattering, his hilarious "falsification" of Newton's Law of Gravity?

And those are just the ones where I think even you can grasp the mathematics. The rest of of his idiotic ramblings are even worse to anyone who's had a cursory education in science.

But you're cool with that, because you like some of the things he says. And you don't give a damn about evidence or the real world - a random website with some deranged scribblings is fine if it's what you want it to say.

Such foul behaviour from you.

Let me just say that the validity of SR is being questioned by some physicists. Does that make them all crackpots?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are nothing but an imposter posing as if you understand this knowledge. What a joke.

You're an imposter, pretending (if only to yourself) that you believe your father's nonsense.

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No, peacegirl. Relativity of simultaneity is a necessary consequence of relativity theory. Realtime seeing is incompatible with relativity of simultaneity, therefore realtime seeing is incompatible with relativity.

You can claim realtime seeing, or you can claim relativity theory (and it's wildly successful predictions). But you can't have both. Pick one.

Real time vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're an imposter, pretending (if only to yourself) that you believe your father's nonsense.

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

You are arrogant Spacemonkey. Your reasoning is flawed but you will only admit it when this discovery is acknowledged by other scientists. You are not objective enough to be able to analyze this material properly, so there's no point in carrying on a conversation with you. I do not want to talk about the eyes with you. As far as his other discovery, all you have done is refute his original observations because you say conscience doesn't function the way he described. Everyone seemed to accept your refutation because I was never able to get past this fake analysis that you created. As a result we never got into the meat of this discovery, which happens to be his most important. His observations were spot on. Conscience functions exactly the way he described. The whole purpose of conscience is to inform the person whether what he is about to do is acceptable based on whether his actions are justifiable. If they aren't justifiable, he cannot proceed (knowing this would be a hurt or first blow) because his conscience would not permit it. You're just as lost as everyone else in here and all of the name calling is just plain old theatrics in an effort to get me to concede because you want to be right at all costs.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are arrogant Spacemonkey. Your reasoning is flawed but you will only admit it when this discovery is acknowledged by other scientists. You are not objective enough to be able to analyze this material properly, so there's no point in carrying on a conversation with you. I do not want to talk about the eyes with you. As far as his other discovery, all you have done is refute his original observations because you say conscience doesn't function the way he described. Everyone seemed to accept your refutation because I was never able to get past this fake analysis that you created. As a result we never got into the meat of this discovery, which happens to be his most important. His observations were spot on. Conscience functions exactly the way he described. The whole purpose of conscience is to inform the person whether what he is about to do is acceptable based on whether his actions are justifiable. If they aren't justifiable, he cannot proceed (knowing this would be a hurt or first blow) because his conscience would not permit it. You're just as lost as everyone else in here and all of the name calling is just plain old theatrics in an effort to get me to concede because you want to be right at all costs.

Keep on weaseling, imposter. We all know the real reason why you refuse to answer these questions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Keep on weaseling, imposter. We all know the real reason why you refuse to answer these questions.

You're deaf and blind. Conversation over!

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Real time vision.

So why does relativity work?

Here is the g-factor for magnetic dipole moment of the electron (predicted):

1.001159652181...

Here is the measured value, only available to us thanks to relativistic field theory:

1.001159652181...

We get the number right, to ridiculous precision. Why?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are nothing but an imposter posing as if you understand this knowledge. What a joke.

You can't counter the argument, so you attack the person making the argument, how very childlike.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So why does relativity work?

Here is the g-factor for magnetic dipole moment of the electron (predicted):

1.001159652181...

Here is the measured value, only available to us thanks to relativistic field theory:

1.001159652181...

We get the number right, to ridiculous precision. Why?

All I know is that my father's observations regarding real time vision were spot on. You don't even know what his observations were.

[Dragar]

And I'll take over 10 significant figures of accuracy over your Dad's say-so.

It's not a case of 'time will tell'. What can time possibly say? The evidence isn't going to go away (do you think it will?). The successes of relativity won't go away, nor will its contradiction to real time vision.

When you stop posting, Lessans will be quickly forgotten. I think that's probably why you keep posting.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

And I'll take over 10 significant figures of accuracy over your Dad's say-so.

It's not a case of 'time will tell'. What can time possibly say? The evidence isn't going to go away (do you think it will?). The successes of relativity won't go away, nor will its contradiction to real time vision.[

When you stop posting, Lessans will be quickly forgotten. I think that's probably why you keep posting.

Time will tell.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let me just say that the validity of SR is being questioned by some physicists. Does that make them all crackpots?

You said that before, and I have asked you to post something from actual physicists, you have not. Why not? Why are you only posting items from crackpots and hobbyists? Why do you say "physicists are saying stuff...." then when I ask for support for your statement you go off on me about how non-scientists can make discoveries too (which I agree with, I even posted a list of such people)?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Time will tell.

I would think that 12+ years of constant debate would be long enough to demonstrate that Lessans ideas were not valid, to any sane individual. May Lessans memory finally "rest in Peace", but fortunately not the "Golden Age".

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're deaf and blind. Conversation over!

You're still pathetically trying to attack me instead of answering my questions. Do you know why that is? The rest of us sure do.

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Conscience functions exactly the way he described.

Prove it

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said that before, and I have asked you to post something from actual physicists, you have not. Why not? Why are you only posting items from crackpots and hobbyists?

Your criteria for determining crackpottery is sheer crackpottery.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your criteria for determining crackpottery is sheer crackpottery.

Refusal to answer the question is noted. Do you plan to support your statement "the validity of SR is being questioned by some physicists?

Why do you say "physicists are saying stuff...." then when I ask for support for your statement you go off on me about how non-scientists can make discoveries too (which I agree with, I even posted a list of such people)?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Prove it

Your defiance is ruining it for you. You don't want to understand; you want to challenge me which is why you are blocked.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your defiance is ruining it for you. You don't want to understand; you want to challenge me which is why you are blocked.

I want you to support your assertions. I can't "understand" if I am expected to just accept on faith.