A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Are there any shreads of that, thoroughly-deceased equine, left that we can still hit? Is there even a stick left to hit it with?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Unless of course Lessans was really on to something ... not that it is something I think we will ever see in this lifetime. It sounds more like something we'd experience in the hereafter. And of course, everybody understands what that's all about.

AM I RIGHT?

No, you are so far removed from what Lessans is saying that I cannot even refute your logic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Maybe if you're 14.

Kael, in defense of SharonLee, you are just as much 14 as she is. So don't attack her. Look at yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In a typical supernova, there's apparently rather less than 10 hours' time between the neutrino burst and the visible-light burst.


A supernova only 10 light-hours away would be inside the Solar System. The planet Neptune is about 4 light-hours away. The minor planet Sedna is 12 light hours away.

A supernova only 50 light years away would produce enough radiation to kill every living thing on Earth, it's estimated. If a supernova could somehow be set off only 10 light hours away, the Earth would be reduced to a cinder.

Huh? The Earth would be reduced to a cinder if you were talking about a supernova that was too close to us. But we're not. We're talking about a supernova which is far away but large enough to be seen. Do you see the difference, or are you going to try to sneak your way out of this one? I do see the problem (and the reason people think Lessans is wrong), but bottom line is you have to defend this theory when there is controvery. If you can't do this, we will never know what is true and what is not. You will throw out this knowledge as total junk, and move on merrily teaching falsehoods based on archaic knowledge. I know you wouldn't want to do that, would you?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

She has been reduced to the



stage.

--J.D.

a few posts later:

I'm saying without even reading your post Lone Ranger

Uncanny!

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Kael, in defense of SharonLee, you are just as much 14 as she is. So don't attack her. Look at yourself.

Heh. That was a dig at Doctor X, not SharonDee.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm saying without even reading your post Lone Ranger, to please let it go because you do not have absolute proof of anything, yet everyone is telling me that I'm trying to fit Lessans' observations into a neat little package which doesn't add up. Helloooooo!!!!!!

Science never claims to have absolute proof of anything. That's not a refutation of anything anyone has told you. We have told you, over and over again in many different ways, that Lessans' ideas on sight do not conform to reality, while the existing scientific model does.

Lessans' concept of viewing in real time was so eloquently demolished by ceptimus over 100 pages ago, that you need to be reminded of it:

The speed of light was originally measured by the Danish astronomer, Ole Römer. He did this by noting the times of the eclipses of Jupiter's moons.

As the moons move in and out of Jupiter's shadow, they appear and disappear at regular intervals - so we have, effectively, a distant clock we can observe.

Römer noticed that the eclipses sometimes happened earlier than expected and sometimes later - the changes were related roughly to the season on Earth! - for example, the eclipses might happen earliest in Winter and latest in Summer*.

Römer realised what was happening - as the Earth moves around its orbit, it is on the same side of the sun as Jupiter at one time of the year, and on the opposite side of the sun six months later. Römer knew that the time variation in the eclipses was about 16 minutes, so if light took about that time to cover the diameter of the earth's orbit it would fully explain the apparent changes in the time of the eclipses. Knowing this, and the size of earth's orbit, Römer calculated the speed of light. Although his method was sound, his clocks weren't as accurate as he would have liked, so his initial value for the speed of light was a little off. However, when other scientists repeated his observations using more accurate clocks, they were quickly able to calculate the speed of light very close to the modern accepted value.

Now Römer was observing the eclipses using his eye (admittedly assisted by a telescope). If your father's theory of seeing were correct then Römer's method wouldn't have worked at all.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Huh? The Earth would be reduced to a cinder if you were talking about a supernova that was too close to us. But we're not. We're talking about a supernova which is far away but large enough to be seen. Do you see the difference, or are you going to try to sneak your way out of this one?

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?

[Nor is your ability to follow a conversation. Hint: I was responding to a direct (though relevant) question from a different poster.]

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In a typical supernova, there's apparently rather less than 10 hours' time between the neutrino burst and the visible-light burst.

Without being a pest (I know, too late) for sake of argument lets assume that the neutrino burst and the visible light burst are 8 hours apart. The neutrinos are traveling Just a little less than C (I don't know the exact number) and the visible light is traveling at C, catching up with the neutrinos. At aproximately what distance would the Super Nova need to be for the Neutrinos and the visible light to arrive at the same time? And have any such Super Novas been observed in modern times (when neutrinos could be detected)?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Heh. That was a dig at Doctor X, not SharonDee.

Well I didn't see Doctor X's remarks. I thought you were directing your comment to SharonDee. My mistake.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?

[Nor is your ability to follow a conversation. Hint: I was responding to a direct (though relevant) question from a different poster.]

Many people are giving their opinions when the post is not directed to them. Are you kidding me? Who cares if it is a relevant response to a relevant question? This is supposed to be a conversation between everyone. I don't begrudge someone from answering a post that was not directed to them, unless they are rude and obnoxious. I will repeat: How far away a supernova is to kill everyone versus how far away it actually is, is an estimate. The calculations are definitely off if efferent vision is correct, therefore how far away a supernova actually is from Earth needs to be recalculated. Even if it is thousands of light years away, it could still be large enough and certainly bright enough to be seen without it burning to a crisp everything in its path, and still be closer to us than what was originally thought.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Without being a pest (I know, too late) for sake of argument lets assume that the neutrino burst and the visible light burst are 8 hours apart. The neutrinos are traveling Just a little less than C (I don't know the exact number) and the visible light is traveling at C, catching up with the neutrinos. At aproximately what distance would the Super Nova need to be for the Neutrinos and the visible light to arrive at the same time? And have any such Super Novas been observed in modern times (when neutrinos could be detected)?

That's hard to say, as it would depend to a large extent on how dense is the interstellar medium. Interstellar space is not a perfect vacuum, and the density of the interstellar medium varies from region to region. As you know, c is the speed of light in a perfect vacuum. But as interstellar space isn't a perfect vacuum, light normally travels slightly more slowly than c. The difference is usually negligable even over very long distances however.

But neutrinos are almost totally noninteractive with normal matter, and so can pass right through even very dense things (like, say, planets) without being slowed down in the slightest.

So if the light is traveling through a dense-enough medium, it's actually possible for neutrinos to travel through the medium faster than photons do. (The neutrinos never travel as fast as c, of course.)

I will repeat: How far away a supernova is to kill everyone versus how far away it actually is, is an estimate. The calculations are definitely off if efferent vision is correct, therefore how far away a supernova actually is from Earth needs to be recalculated.

Really? You know this how?

Provide a detailed explanation or admit that you're lying. Remember: our methods for measuring stellar distances don't depend on how we see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Science never claims to have absolute proof of anything. That's not a refutation of anything anyone has told you. We have told you, over and over again in many different ways, that Lessans' ideas on sight do not conform to reality, while the existing scientific model does.

Lessans' concept of viewing in real time was so eloquently demolished by ceptimus over 100 pages ago, that you need to be reminded of it:

It's not a matter of whether it worked or not. It's a matter of whether it is correct or not. In theory, anything can work. Something can appear spotless, but when investigated further, it's wrong. I am aware of the Jupiter's moon experiment, and also other theories that have been based on these calculations. But if it is determined that sight is efferent (I realize no one believes this at this point; it will probably take years and years of more testing to determine whether it is a valid observation), everything down the line crumbles. Haven't you seen in a court of law how the prosecutors know how to make the defendent look guilty through supporting evidence that is later found to be questionable by another set of conflicting evidence just as powerful? I would be so positive they got the right guy, only to realize that the evidence was not as airtight as they made it out to be. The defense lawyer would then show how that same 'evidence' could be presented in support of the defendant that would be just as convincing, and turn the case upside down.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So if the light is traveling through a dense-enough medium, it's actually possible for neutrinos to travel through the medium faster than photons do. (The neutrinos never travel as fast as c, of course.)

OK I've got my stick and I'm looking for that thoroughly-deceased equine.

Hypothetically speaking, IF (I know a really big IF) visible light could travel at C, (disregarding the intersteller medium) then what would the Hypothetical distance be? Assuming the 8 hours differential.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

......another set of conflicting evidence just as powerful?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The calculations are definitely off if efferent vision is correct, therefore how far away a supernova actually is from Earth needs to be recalculated.

Just exactly HOW does efferent vision change the calculations from those of afferent vission?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's hard to say, as it would depend to a large extent on how dense is the interstellar medium. Interstellar space is not a perfect vacuum, and the density of the interstellar medium varies from region to region. As you know, c is the speed of light in a perfect vacuum. But as interstellar space isn't a perfect vacuum, light normally travels slightly more slowly than c. The difference is usually negligable even over very long distances however.

But neutrinos are almost totally noninteractive with normal matter, and so can pass right through even very dense things (like, say, planets) without being slowed down in the slightest.

So if the light is traveling through a dense-enough medium, it's actually possible for neutrinos to travel through the medium faster than photons do. (The neutrinos never travel as fast as c, of course.)

Really? You know this how?

Provide a detailed explanation or admit that you're lying. Remember: our methods for measuring stellar distances don't depend on how we see.

I'm not playing this game with you if you call me a liar. You already know where I'm coming from. I don't have to keep repeating myself that efferent vision changes the estimated calculation. I need say no more about this or I'll become a whipping post. I will say one last thing. I was reading the following in a prestigious magazine.

The vision defect commonly associated with glaucoma is tunnel vision, a very real phenomenon that occurs when about 40% of the nerve fibers exiting the eye at the optic nerve die. In this type of permanent vision loss, nerve filaments die off because each is associated with a mother cell known as the retinal ganglion cell, or RGC.

I thought you said there were no efferent nerve fibers? Just wondering, so don't get bent out of shape Lone Ranger. This is not a confrontation, just a question.

[SharonDee]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just exactly HOW does efferent vision change the calculations from those of afferent vission?

And here's something I've never understood, being Science Dumb and all: Why does vision even need to be efferent for The Great Man's words to be true?

(Apologies if we've covered this already; my brain is like waxed linoleum that information slides on with socked feet.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the person is acquitted because the jury could not in good conscience put this person in jail for the rest of his natural life due to a reasonable doubt, I would say that's pretty powerful conflicting evidence.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not playing this game with you if you call me a liar. You already know where I'm coming from. I don't have to keep repeating myself that efferent vision changes the estimated calculation.

Since our methods of measuring stellar distances don't depend on whether or not vision is afferent, it makes no difference for measuring stellar distances. So you're just making it up when you claim that efferent vision would affect our measurements of stellar distances -- in short, you're lying when you claim that this is true.

I was reading the following in a prestigious magazine.

The vision defect commonly associated with glaucoma is tunnel vision, a very real phenomenon that occurs when about 40% of the nerve fibers exiting the eye at the optic nerve die. In this type of permanent vision loss, nerve filaments die off because each is associated with a mother cell known as the retinal ganglion cell, or RGC.

I thought you said there were no efferent nerve fibers? Just wondering, so don't get bent out of shape Lone Ranger. This is not a confrontation, just a question.

Are your really that stupid? Did you even read what you just quoted?

The optic nerve is afferent because its fibers originate in the retina and travel to the brain. That's the definition of an afferent nerve!

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a matter of whether it worked or not. It's a matter of whether it is correct or not. In theory, anything can work. Something can appear spotless, but when investigated further, it's wrong. I am aware of the Jupiter's moon experiment, and also other theories that have been based on these calculations. But if it is determined that sight is efferent (I realize no one believes this at this point; it will probably take years and years of more testing to determine whether it is a valid observation), everything down the line crumbles.

When we are talking about reality, "correct" and "it works" are synonymous. You need to be able to explain all of these natural phenomena if you expect anyone to begin to accept an alternative theory of sight.... and no one is interested in helping you because Lessans ideas are nonsensical and inconsistent with observed reality.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by SharonDee

And here's something I've never understood, being Science Dumb and all: Why does vision even need to be efferent for The Great Man's words to be true?

(Apologies if we've covered this already; my brain is like waxed linoleum that information slides on with socked feet.)

Actually, more than one person ITT has speculated that you don't need efferent vision. IIRC, Vivisectus even rewrote that part of the chapter to express the same ideas about how words affect perception but dropped the statements about efferent vision.

peacegirl told him he was wrong, of course.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The defense lawyer would then show how that same 'evidence' could be presented in support of the defendant that would be just as convincing, and turn the case upside down.

YouTube - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the...

Well you just can't get any more authortative than this, and Adams is just as dead as Lessans, so that should settle it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the person is acquitted because the jury could not in good conscience put this person in jail for the rest of his natural life due to a reasonable doubt, I would say that's pretty powerful conflicting evidence.

Reasonable Doubt is not conflicting in any way, it's just that there is not quite enough or circumstantial, which is not direct, but not conflicting. So Legal practice is something else you don't know anything about, just breaking wind again?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Haven't you seen in a court of law how the prosecutors know how to make the defendent look guilty through supporting evidence that is later found to be questionable by another set of conflicting evidence just as powerful? I would be so positive they got the right guy, only to realize that the evidence was not as airtight as they made it out to be. The defense lawyer would then show how that same 'evidence' could be presented in support of the defendant that would be just as convincing, and turn the case upside down.

You've been watching way too much TV, remember all those TV courtroom dramas are determined by the script writers, and usually have no basis in reality, TV is usually fiction, much like the book.