A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I want is a chance to do the empirical testing other than the "accumulated knowledge in astronomy." . I got the right impression doc. You want to keep the integrity of science, right? So that leaves Lessans out, according to you, which is the whole reason you brought this up.

If you are really serious about empirical testing, it would be in your interest to discover what testing has been done, how it was done, in order to know the level of accuracy and the rigorous nature of the scientific process. Having done that, which is only fair to what has been discovered before, you would then be in a better position to suggest what tests could be done, and how they should be done. I would think that since you want us to do the courtesy of considering Lessans work, you would at least have the consideration to find out what accepted theory is.

[Doctor X]

She has only wanted affirmation, not examination.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, if vision works the way that Lessans claims, this would allow real-time communication (and thus, exchange of information) over essentially any distance.

Let's say that we've got some astronauts in a spacecraft that's orbiting Mars, and we want to communicate with them right now. The problem is that when Mars and Earth are closest, they're still a bit more than 5 light-minutes apart. So radio waves will take more than 5 minutes to reach the spacecraft and its astronauts.

Maybe some technician was going over the last telemetry data from the spacecraft and noticed a critical failure was in progress. Based on his evaluation of the data, the spacecraft will explode and kill everyone on board in just 30 seconds' time.


Well according to all of modern physics, the astronauts are out of luck, because the minimum time it will take to transmit information from Earth to the spacecraft in Mars orbit is more than 5 minutes.

But if Lessans were correct, we could easily communicate with (that is to say, exchange information with) the astronauts in real time. All you need is a bright-enough light. That's not a problem; we already make light emitters that should be visible to the naked eye from Mars orbit.

If that seems like too great a distance, for some reason, that's okay. We'll just relocate the astronauts to the Moon. We definitely have light emitters that are bright-enough to be seen by the human eye from the surface of the Moon -- quite a lot of them, in fact.

I don't believe there is a light that is bright enough on Earth to be seen from the Moon.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In any event, if Lessans were correct, we could easily communicate in real time with astronauts, simply by using a bright-enough light emitter. Put a similar light emitter on the astronauts' spacecraft and we could have a two-way conversation in real time, even if the spacecraft were several light-minutes away from Earth.

Do you actually think a light emitter would be bright enough coming from the astronauts' spacecraft for this to occur? No way.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

After all, using coded pulses of light for communication is a technique that is centuries old. The astronauts and ground controllers could communicate in Morse code, if nothing else.

Morse code is textual information. How could you compare this to what Lessans is saying?

Morse code is a method for transmitting telegraphic information, using standardized sequences of short and long elements to represent the letters, numerals, punctuation and special characters of a message. The short and long elements can be formed by sounds, marks or pulses, in on off keying and are commonly known as "dots" and "dashes" or "dits" and "dahs".

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If we see a light being turned on in real time, then it's necessarily true that we can communicate in real time, because we can communicate with light.

There's no escaping this, because if nothing else, merely turning on the light can be a means of communicating information. Let's say that the astronauts have been told: "If you see a white light, that means there's a problem with your engines; if you see a red light, that means there's a problem with your life-support system; if you see a blue light, that means the Dodgers have won the pennant." So the mere act of turning on the light conveys information to the astronauts.



So let's say that a ground controller here on Earth sends a message via pulsed light to the astronauts on Mars, a message that says "Hey! I've just discovered that you need to turn off switch 27-X RIGHT NOW or you'll be killed!"

Note that the ground controller is sending information from Earth to Mars. According to standard physics, it should take more than 5 minutes for the astronauts to receive the information. In which case, they're doomed.

But if Lessans were correct, they'd receive the message immediately.

They would, but only if the light was bright enough. I don't believe that's possible. In fact, I believe it's impossible to have a light bright enough for this to work successfully.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Note that regardless of how the information is actually transmitted, if Lessans were correct and we saw in real time, then it would be easy to transmit information in real time, without having to worry about the limiting factor imposed by the finite speed of light.

But we're not talking about transmission.

Transmission refers to the process of transferring of any material. This can be the spreading of a disease (i.e. transmission of a virus) or the broadcasting of electromagnetic waves from one location to another (i.e. television or radio transmissions from a transmitter to a receiver).

***

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Now then, why does this illustrate the impossibility of efferent vision, as proposed by Lessans?

That information cannot be transmitted instantaneously -- by any means -- isn't just some theoretical notion, it's a fact. In order to understand why, you should keep in the mind that in order to move something, you need a source of energy.

In order for information to travel between two points, something must carry it. That "something" might be light (photons), or it might be matter of some type (a courier, perhaps) -- but something must carry that information between the two points.


In order to move something, you must supply it with energy. In the case of matter, the faster you want it to go, the more energy you must put into it. Light is a bit different, since light travels at a set speed. Making it more energetic doesn't make the light go any faster, it just alters the wavelength (and thus the frequency).



So: If we see in real time, then we can transmit information in real time. And something must carry that information. Photons, protons, electrons, carrier pigeons -- take your pick.

But if information is somehow moving between two points in no time at all, that necessarily means that the information is moving infinitely fast. Which would mean that whatever is carrying that information must be infinitely energetic.

Actually, it's worse even than that, since it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate even the tiniest particle of matter "merely" to the speed of light. To make it go even faster would require infinitely more energy than that, if the concept even makes any sense.



Anyway, whatever is transmitting the information -- whether it's light or carrier pigeons or whatever -- must be moving infinitely fast if instantaneous information transfer is occurring. And vision is transfer of information (visual information, if nothing else) from one place to another by definition. So real-time vision would require the instantaneous transfer of information from the object being seen to the eyes.

It doesn't matter whether the visual information is being carried by light or if light is only a "necessary condition for seeing" and the brain itself somehow "reaches out" and acquires the information. The point is that if we see in real time, then there must necessarily be instantaneous movement of information between 2 points.

But that would necessarily mean that whatever's carrying that information must be infinitely energetic. And, rather obviously, the Universe does not contain an infinite amount of energy.

Thus, it is not -- and it never can be -- possible for information to be transferred between two points in space instantly. There's always going to be some delay. And efferent vision, as proposed by Lessans, requires the instantaneous movement of information. Thus it is impossible even in theory, much less in practice.

THERE IS NO TRANSMISSION, SO THERE WOULD BE NOTHING CARRYING THE INFORMATION, SO THERE WOULD BE NO INSTANTANEOUS MOVEMENT OF INFORMATION, SO THERE WOULD BE NO INFORMATION BEING TRANSMITTED FASTER THAN THE FINITE SPEED OF LIGHT!!!!!

(* If the light was not bright enough to be seen by the naked eye (which I don't think is possible from Earth to the moon, no matter how great the technology), then the transmission of that light, where it would be possible to see it, would take 5 minutes because that light is now being transmitted, or traveling, at a certain rate of speed).

[Vivisectus]

This thread just went a few lulz up on the lulzy scale. Well done! I did not think it was possible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I want is a chance to do the empirical testing other than the "accumulated knowledge in astronomy." . I got the right impression doc. You want to keep the integrity of science, right? So that leaves Lessans out, according to you, which is the whole reason you brought this up.

Originally Posted by thedoc

If you are really serious about empirical testing, it would be in your interest to discover what testing has been done, how it was done, in order to know the level of accuracy and the rigorous nature of the scientific process. Having done that, which is only fair to what has been discovered before, you would then be in a better position to suggest what tests could be done, and how they should be done. I would think that since you want us to do the courtesy of considering Lessans work, you would at least have the consideration to find out what accepted theory is.

From what I have seen, the tests that have anything to do with determining how the eyes function are in regard to afferent vision (there have been no tests on efferent vision because scientists believe it is a fact that we have afferent vision; similar to philosophers who didn't look behind the door of determinism because they believed free will proved determinism's falseness; “If there is an almost eternal recurrence of philosophies of freedom it is because direct perception can never be beaten down with formulas, or sensation with reasoning.”) so you can't go by those tests. Plus, I don't think they were reliable. I don't think they purposely skewed the results, but the test themselves were biased.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This thread just went a few lulz up on the lulzy scale. Well done! I did not think it was possible.

That's because you believe that when light travels, we must be seeing the past. But if the eyes are efferent (let's say this theoretically) then we would be seeing the present. Obviously, if light is traveling, just like sound, we aren't seeing the light that was traveling two seconds before. We would be seeing the light as it begins to become visible (because of our ability to see objects or images within our visual field). I think you totally misunderstood what I was saying. Anything can be laughed at that's not understood.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe there is a light that is bright enough on Earth to be seen from the Moon.

Wrong again.

You see, what you and your father believe, and how reality is, are two very different things.

Can someone give peacegirl the above link, in case she still has me on Ignore?
Thanks!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl;947942I

Do you actually think a light emitter would be bright enough coming from the astronauts' spacecraft for this to occur? No way.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

THERE IS NO TRANSMISSION, SO THERE WOULD BE NOTHING CARRYING THE INFORMATION, SO THERE WOULD BE NO INSTANTANEOUS MOVEMENT OF INFORMATION, SO THERE WOULD BE NO INFORMATION BEING TRANSMITTED FASTER THAN THE FINITE SPEED OF LIGHT!!!!!

Oh no, halfwit? The change from an off state of the sun (0) to an on-state (1) is information by definition. If no information is transferred somehow, then one can't know that the sun has been turned on.

Gah!

[Vivisectus]

You are so right - if only you had read and understood my explanation that firemen are a necessary condition for fires, you would see how it is undeniable, mathematic and also an astute observation. It is not your fault - you are just not ready for the awesome truthiness of it.

Information that just arrives carried by nothing is not transmitted. Brilliant answer! You cannot argue with that! Does causality disagree with your father? Out with it then!

Keep it up - who knows what else that we think we know is going to turn out to be wrong?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

From what I have seen, the tests that have anything to do with determining how the eyes function are in regard to afferent vision (there have been no tests on efferent vision because scientists believe it is a fact that we have afferent vision; similar to philosophers who didn't look behind the door of determinism because they believed free will proved determinism's falseness; “If there is an almost eternal recurrence of philosophies of freedom it is because direct perception can never be beaten down with formulas, or sensation with reasoning.”) so you can't go by those tests. Plus, I don't think they were reliable. I don't think they purposely skewed the results, but the test themselves were biased.

So sayeth the idiot who knows nothing about science.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you believe that when light travels, we must be seeing the past. But if the eyes are efferent (let's say this theoretically) then we would be seeing the present. Obviously, if light is traveling, just like sound, we aren't seeing the light that was traveling two seconds before. We would be seeing the light as it begins to become visible (because of our ability to see objects or images within our visual field). I think you totally misunderstood what I was saying. Anything can be laughed at that's not understood.

As it begins to become visible?

HOW does it "begin to become visible"?

Since yourself admit that light travels at a finite rate of speed, it can only "begin to become visible" by reaching your eyes!

Hey, peacegirl, you said that light will reach the eye instantaneously but will reach a camera after a time delay. This is a prediction that your idiot hypothesis makes. It turns out to be false: When we compare photos of distant objects in space with what we see, they match. How do you explain that?

[LadyShea]

The short and long elements can be formed by sounds, marks or pulses, in on off keying

Morse code can be done by turning a light on and off in the prescribed pattern. My brother and I used to do this with flashlights in the woods. Light signals like this are one of the oldest forms of distance communication...you can use something as simple as the shutter on an oil lantern. Ships and boats can use lights and Morse code to communicate between each other if there is a radio communications problem for example.

If you can see the light instantly due to efferent vision, you can send and receive information instantly because you would be using efferent vision to see a light blinking on/off in a pattern.

This is a necessary conclusion drawn from your claims, peacegirl

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Morse code is textual information. How could you compare this to what Lessans is saying?

Morse code is a method for transmitting telegraphic information, using standardized sequences of short and long elements to represent the letters, numerals, punctuation and special characters of a message. The short and long elements can be formed by sounds, marks or pulses, in on off keying and are commonly known as "dots" and "dashes" or "dits" and "dahs".

Oh, lord, I just noticed this. Oh, the stupidity!

See LadyShea's post.

[LadyShea]

davidm, If you saw 3 short pulses of light, followed by 3 longer held pulses, then a repeat of the 3 short pulses, what would be communicated? What information would have been gained by seeing light?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

davidm, If you saw 3 short pulses of light, followed by 3 longer held pulses, then a repeat of the 3 short pulses, what would be communicated? What information would have been gained by seeing light?

It's called SOS!

Hey peacegirl, now what? You mean to tell me you can't grasp SOS being conveyed by light?

And yes, as in the link above (LadyShea, could you give her the link to the laser light being sent to the moon? Thank you. ) it is not only possible to send light from the earth that is visible on the moon, it has been done for decades!)

Wow, what is she going to say now? Derp, let's predict:

Oh, but no information is being transmitted

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by davidm

Wrong again.

You see, what you and your father believe, and how reality is, are two very different things.

Can someone give peacegirl the above link, in case she still has me on Ignore?
Thanks!

Done

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Done

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This thread just went a few lulz up on the lulzy scale. Well done! I did not think it was possible.

The Big Lulz are a mere 14 pages away, when the party begins.

[The Lone Ranger]

It's not just lasers that are visible to the naked eye from the Moon. Quite a lot of artificial lights are plenty bright-enough, even when they aren't even pointed at the Moon. Apollo astronauts said that they could clearly recognize the city of Las Vegas from the Moon, for instance, because the city lights were visible from that distance.

They mentioned Las Vegas as being distinguishable because it's pretty isolated. Ironically, they couldn't distinguish individual cities near either coast because there was too much light visible. As seen from the Moon, the coastal cities are too close, and so look like an indistinct smear of light.


Here's an actual composite photograph of the Earth's night side, taken by the space probe Rosetta as it passed by the Earth on its way to a comet. Note that the camera was set at a relatively low sensitivity for this photo, as the probe was near the Earth and they didn't want the sensors to be "blinded" by too much light being reflected from the Earth. (Note that the "lowermost" portion of the Earth is sunlit, so they had to keep the camera's exposure time short, so as not to get a picture that would be just an overexposed crescent of light.)

Even though this is a region of the Earth that has relatively few city lights (look up some photos of the United States or Japan or Western Europe from space; they're a lot brighter), you can even make out geographic features like the shape of the Indian Subcontinent by the distribution of city lights.

[LadyShea]

The light from the Luxor in Vegas is bright enough to be seen from the orbiting space shuttle.

[The Lone Ranger]

It's worth noting that vision involves movement of information by definition. When we see something outside our bodies, information about that object (color, shape, brightness, etc.) is moving between it and our eyes/brain by definition. Otherwise, we aren't seeing.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

From what I have seen, the tests that have anything to do with determining how the eyes function are in regard to afferent vision (there have been no tests on efferent vision because scientists believe it is a fact that we have afferent vision; , I don't think they were reliable. I don't think they purposely skewed the results, but the test themselves were biased.

Actually Aristotle did propose a form of afferent vision but this was reversed in the middle ages,

"Aristotle's explanation of the process of human vision was that the object being looked at somehow altered the "medium" (now known to be air) between the object itself and the viewer's eye. This alteration of the medium was thought to propagate to the eye, allowing the object to be seen. During the Middle Ages Aristotle's theory was reversed. Instead of postulating that the object itself had innate properties which allowed vision, popular theory of the time suggested that the viewer's eyes sent out emissions to the object and that those emissions enabled vision to occur."

so as scientists started observing and investigation of vision and the eyes, it would have been with the assumption of efferent vision, but the experiments and tests have reversed that, and proven afferent vision. You need to actually research, and look at the tests that have been done rather than dismissing them without examination, which is what you are accusing the members of this forum of doing with Lessans ideas. You are accusing everyone here of dismissing Lessans book without examination, yet you are dismissing all the research on vision without examining it yourself, you have even refused to look at it or consider it.

[Vivisectus]

So - if we can flip the Luxor on and off to send instant morse-code signals to our unfortunate spacefarers, doesn't that mean that they will receive that signal just as many minutes before we begin sending the message as they are light-minutes away?

That is what Einstein suggests, isn't it?

[Vivisectus]

And hang on - if we send the message instantly to the astronauts, who are 30 light minutes away, and they respond within 1 minute by the same method - does that not mean the response will hit us about 58 minutes before we asked the question?