A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then you should continue to ask questions, not tell me it didn't have any substance.

In all the years that you've been here, you haven't been able to provide one shred of substance in support of your claims.

Every single time someone goes to the trouble of explaining to you the problems with your claims -- frequently providing voluminous documentation and detailed explanation -- your response is some variation of:





Heck, as you yourself have frequently admitted, you have no interest whatsoever in examining (much less understanding) why Lessans' claims are incompatible with virtually everything we understand about physics, astronomy, biology, neural physiology, and human anatomy.



So why on Earth would any sane person think that's going to suddenly change?

That is why most people who contribute to this thread think of you as a joke. When they aren't being frustrated by your willful ignorance, your hypocrisy, and your dishonesty, that is.

Personally, I don't think you're funny at all. I'm torn between feeling sorry for you and feeling outraged at your dishonesty, your willful ignorance, and your astonishing hypocrisy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In all the years that you've been here, you haven't been able to provide one shred of substance in support of your claims.

Every single time someone goes to the trouble of explaining to you the problems with your claims -- frequently providing voluminous documentation and detailed explanation -- your response is some variation of:





Heck, as you yourself have frequently admitted, you have no interest whatsoever in examining (much less understanding) why Lessans' claims are incompatible with virtually everything we understand about physics, astronomy, biology, neural physiology, and human anatomy.



So why on Earth would any sane person think that's going to suddenly change?

That is why most people who contribute to this thread think of you as a joke. When they aren't being frustrated by your willful ignorance, your hypocrisy, and your dishonesty, that is.

Personally, I don't think you're funny at all. I'm torn between feeling sorry for you and feeling outraged at your dishonesty, your willful ignorance, and your astonishing hypocrisy.

I know what all of you think. That's why I am not getting into this again. I only get more of the same. It's almost like a software program gone bad. I do not believe that he was wrong, sorry. This does not make me dishonest. His evidence comes from a different source than astronomy, but it is not inconsistent with every field you mentioned. Optics is not inconsistent, nor is biology or human anatomy. The mechanism of how the brain and eyes work in unison is not fully understood. Physics is replete with pet theories and corrupted logic, so I don't care whether it contravenes this field.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not believe that he was wrong, sorry.

Of course not. It's the frequent lying that makes you dishonest.

His evidence comes from a different source than astronomy, but it is not inconsistent with every field you mentioned.

Neither he nor you has ever been able to provide even a single example of evidence to support his claims. You've provided lots of unsupported claims, yes, but not a single piece of actual evidence.

Optics is not inconsistent, nor is biology or human anatomy. [ The mechanism of how the brain and eyes work in unison is not fully understood.

By your own repeated admission, you don't know enough of the relevant science to know whether or not this is true. And by your own repeated admission, you have no interest whatsoever in learning.

Physics is replete with pet theories and corrupted logic, so I don't care whether it contravenes this field.

Translation: "I don't care in the least about the actual evidence; I have faith, and that's good enough for me."

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are misusing the definition. It is assumed that light brings the information through space/time therefore... In the efferent account nothing is being brought to us through traveling light, so it doesn't apply.

It doesn't matter. For the millionth time, the only thing that counts is the timing. If you see the Sun turned on immediately (or after a nanosecond, whatever) the information that the Sun has been turned on has traveled faster than light. That's what the phrase means.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I am not getting into this again.

Then why don't you go play with your grandchildren, and do something productive, instead of trying to foist your father's nonsense onto people who know better.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not believe that he was wrong, sorry. This does not make me dishonest.

It does make you dishonest because the truth has been explained to you many times.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His evidence comes from a different source than astronomy, but it is not inconsistent with every field you mentioned. Optics is not inconsistent, nor is biology or human anatomy. The mechanism of how the brain and eyes work in unison is not fully understood. Physics is replete with pet theories and corrupted logic, so I don't care whether it contravenes this field.

Yes, his ideas come from a different source, his imagination. And his ideas are inconsistent with every branch of science that he has made claims about. But you are correct, you don't care about reality, you just care what your father wrote in his book, inaccurate as it was. The pet theories are usually backed with empirical evidence that can be replicated by other scientists. The corrupted logic is discovered and corrected, sometimes by the scientist who made the mistake in the first place. Your father never took the time to correct his mistakes, or is that why he burned all his books, he realized they were wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Oh good the thread has been un-ruined again

Give me some time, I'm working on it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Of course not. It's the frequent lying that makes you dishonest.

You keep accusing me of lying. Lying implies intent to deceive. I have never done that.

His evidence comes from a different source than astronomy, but it is not inconsistent with every field you mentioned.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Neither he nor you has ever been able to provide even a single example of evidence to support his claims. You've provided lots of unsupported claims, yes, but not a single piece of actual evidence.

If you believe his observations were not validated, then that leaves a space for further investigation. I believe his observations and inferences based on those observations were spot on. The verdict is still out, even though you strongly disagree.

Optics is not inconsistent, nor is biology or human anatomy. [ The mechanism of how the brain and eyes work in unison is not fully understood.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

By your own repeated admission, you don't know enough of the relevant science to know whether or not this is true. And by your own repeated admission, you have no interest whatsoever in learning.

I have listened to the relevant science and even though, by all appearances, it negates his claim, I don't believe it actually does. If you are so sure that he was wrong (which I know you and every one here does), then let it go. I have no interest in continuing the conversation. I thought we could talk about other things I posted, but no one gives a damn. Is this really a free thought forum?

Physics is replete with pet theories and corrupted logic, so I don't care whether it contravenes this field.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Translation: "I don't care in the least about the actual evidence; I have faith, and that's good enough for me."

Translation: Unless I agree with your interpretation of the actual evidence, you will call me a faith based fundie, and that's good enough for you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

It doesn't matter. For the millionth time, the only thing that counts is the timing. If you see the Sun turned on immediately (or after a nanosecond, whatever) the information that the Sun has been turned on has traveled faster than light. That's what the phrase means.

The phrase means that nothing can be transmitted through space/time faster than light, which is true. I don't think Einstein ever thought about information being conveyed that does not require travel time. For the millionth time, if the eyes work the way Lessans believed, then the distance between the Sun and the person observing it being turned on is no different than the distance between a candle and the person observing it being lit because actual distance is irrelevant.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The phrase means that nothing can be transmitted through space/time faster than light, which is true. I don't think Einstein ever thought about information being conveyed that does not require travel time. For the millionth time, if the eyes work the way Lessans believed, then the distance between the Sun and the person observing it being turned on is no different than the distance between a candle and the person observing it being lit because actual distance is irrelevant.

Wrong again. You still don't get it. The speed of light is the speed limit on any causal connection. With instantaneous information transfer, in some reference frames (for some observers) you see the light of the Sun before it has been turned on.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Wrong again. You still don't get it. The speed of light is the speed limit on any causal connection. With instantaneous information transfer, in some reference frames (for some observers) you see the light of the Sun before it has been turned on.

Now you're getting into special relativity which is not what this is about. This account has nothing to do with one's frame of reference regarding the transfer of information.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now you're getting into special relativity which is not what this is about. This account has nothing to do with one's frame of reference regarding the transfer of information.

So now you're saying there's a speed limit on information transfer (causality) that has nothing to do with relativity?

Congratulations, you just made something up again.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what all of you think.

Ye old Hero versus the Monolithic Hive Mind where all detractors are the same.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Translation: Unless I agree with your interpretation of the actual evidence, you will call me a faith based fundie, and that's good enough for you.

Wrong again. You're a faith-based fundie because you don't care about the evidence. That's something that you yourself have freely admitted on more than one occasion.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no interest in continuing the conversation.

I thought we could talk about other things I posted, but no one gives a damn. Is this really a free thought forum?

And yet you are still here.

This is a free thought forum, you are free to post whatever drivel you choose, but others are free to choose to not respond to your nonsense.

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;1257748]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Translation: Unless I agree with your interpretation of the actual evidence, you will call me a faith based fundie.

You are a faith based fundie, and you have proven that with every post where you declare your faith that your father was right, without any evidence to support him at all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep accusing me of lying. Lying implies intent to deceive. I have never done that.

You have intended to deceive everyone here from your first post, by claiming that your fathers book was true, and that he had made a discovery. Your fathers book is fiction and there is no discovery.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The phrase means that nothing can be transmitted through space/time faster than light, which is true. I don't think Einstein ever thought about information being conveyed that does not require travel time. For the millionth time, if the eyes work the way Lessans believed, then the distance between the Sun and the person observing it being turned on is no different than the distance between a candle and the person observing it being lit because actual distance is irrelevant.

The brain/eyes don't work the way Lessans believed, and the image of the Sun cannot get to the eyes/brain on Earth is less that 8.5 minutes. Lessans was wrong, The distance is relevant and nothing you or Lessans say, can change that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then you should continue to ask questions...

Oh, you mean like I've been doing?

Any chance they'll ever get answered?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film or retina 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 or retina when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film/retina 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 film/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/retina at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space
April 14, 2012 by Lisa Zyga

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

(Phys.org) -- Philosophers have debated the nature of time long before Einstein and modern physics. But in the 106 years since Einstein, the prevailing view in physics has been that time serves as the fourth dimension of space, an arena represented mathematically as 4D Minkowski spacetime. However, some scientists, including Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti, founders of the Space Life Institute in Slovenia, argue that time exists completely independent from space. In a new study, Sorli and Fiscaletti have shown that two phenomena of special relativity - time dilation and length contraction - can be better described within the framework of a 3D space with time as the quantity used to measure change (i.e., photon motion) in this space.

The scientists have published their article in a recent issue of Physics Essays. The work builds on their previous articles, in which they have investigated the definition of time as a “numerical order of material change.”
The main concepts of special relativity - that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, and that there is no absolute reference frame - are traditionally formulated within the framework of Minkowski spacetime. In this framework, the three spatial dimensions are intuitively visualized, while the time dimension is mathematically represented by an imaginary coordinate, and cannot be visualized in a concrete way.

In their paper, Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that, while the concepts of special relativity are sound, the introduction of 4D Minkowski spacetime has created a century-long misunderstanding of time as the fourth dimension of space that lacks any experimental support. They argue that well-known time dilation experiments, such as those demonstrating that clocks do in fact run slower in high-speed airplanes than at rest, support special relativity and time dilation but not necessarily Minkowski spacetime or length contraction. According to the conventional view, clocks run slower at high speeds due to the nature of Minkowski spacetime itself as a result of both time dilation and length contraction. But Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that the slow clocks can better be described by the relative velocity between the two reference frames, which the clocks measure, not which the clocks are a part of. In this view, space and time are two separate entities.

“With clocks we measure the numerical order of motion in 3D space,” Sorli told Phys.org. “Time is 'separated' from space in a sense that time is not a fourth dimension of space. Instead, time as a numerical order of change exists in a 3D space. Our model on space and time is founded on measurement and corresponds better to physical reality.”

cont. at: Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space
April 14, 2012 by Lisa Zyga

We've discussed that before. Pure crackpottery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

We've discussed that before. Pure crackpottery.

No it isn't crackpottery. You don't get to throw something out just because you don't like it.

[The Lone Ranger]

It is not "crackpottery" because people don't like it; it's crackpottery because it's demonstrably false.

Time dilation and length contraction aren't theoretical concepts, they're observed phenomena. Much of our modern technology must take time dilation into account, or it doesn't function. GPS, for instance, doesn't work if you fail to factor in the observed phenomenon of time dilation.

Heck, you can observe it for yourself. Put 2 very accurate clocks that are perfectly synchronized onto 2 very fast aircraft and send them off in opposite directions. Afterwards, the clocks are no longer perfectly synchronized; they will disagree, and by exactly the amount that Einstein's theory says that they should. This experiment has been done on many occasions, by the way.